Motor Trend classified the core of the American car market as “Family Cars” in 1959, and they certainly represented the bulk of sales. The Big Three dominated with their large and flamboyant offerings, though the over-the-top designs would turn out to be the beginning of the end for tail fins. Even at the luxury end of the spectrum, there was a sharp contrast between the style of U.S. offerings and the imports, which would play out in other segments as well. Read on to see key highlights by brand as compiled by the editors of Motor Trend.
Poor Studebaker. Raymond Leowy’s clean, breakthrough design from 1953 didn’t lend itself to the addition of faddish fins (which arrived for 1957 and continued for 1959), and thus seemed out-of-style and out-of-date. The surprise star of the American market in 1958 had been Rambler, including the “stretched” Ambassador that attempted to be “full-sized.” For 1959 the basic design continued, featuring slightly more compact and practical dimensions than the competing products from the Big Three.
1959 was the year that General Motors fought back against Chrysler’s striking “Forward Look” of 1957. The unexpected leapfrogging of Mopar’s designs had prompted a “palace coup” in GM’s styling department, with Bill Mitchell managing to displace the legendary styling boss Harley Earl. Mitchell proposed low, sleek, fully finned designs to be introduced for 1959 in lieu of Earl’s intended continuation of the bulbous and overly-chromed 1958 models. To achieve the rapid transformation on such a short timetable, GM’s corporate bosses dictated more commonality than ever in terms of platforms and components. Look closely and you’ll see that A-, B-, and C-Body lines shared a common front door architecture (based on Buick’s design). Stylists still did a good job masquerading the common bits to create distinct personalities by division. For my personal preferences, I’d pick Pontiac as the best of the bunch, with the handsome split grill that would soon become a brand trademark, plus the new “Wide Track” stance that made the car look slightly more “planted.”
For 1959, the pioneer of the “Forward Look” served-up the first significant restyle of that basic design theme (1958 Mopars had basically been a carryover of the 1957 styling with just minor tweaks). While the re-skins looked fresh, they were no longer breakthrough as they had been two years earlier. Plus, Chrysler was still recovering from the bad quality reputation that had plagued the first “Forward Look” products. Still, Chrysler did trot out new engineering features including improved engines and the novel “swivel seat” to aid with ingress/egress.
Ford Motor Company released new designs for 3 of its 4 divisions that came across as the most conversation of the Big Three offerings. Bodies were more square cut, fins were less extreme, and though there were plenty of garish styling details (especially on top trim models), the looks were subdued compared to competitors. Edsel and Mercury in particular came across as much more tame relative to the wilder designs offered for 1958. In fact, to me the 1959 Edsel was by far the best looking of the three short years that the brand was on offer, with a better integrated vertical grille in place of the notorious “horse collar” (or worse) from 1958. Only Lincoln carried over with the mammoth and overwrought style of 1958 more or less intact.
GM’s highest volume division offered some of the most extreme new styling: Chevrolet’s rear “batwings” (or “gull wings”) riding over “cat’s eye” taillights certainly looked, uh, “memorable.” By contrast, Ford’s Thunderbird carried over the successful 4-seat design from 1958 with only minor trim modifications.
Two unexpected cars to make Motor Trend’s “Family Car” list were the traditionally British Jaguar Mark IX and the sleek, novel Citroen ID-19, DS-19 from France. I can’t imagine that there was too much cross-shopping between these two and the big, finny domestics.
The cartoon illustrations that Motor Trend used to introduce each section of the World Cars issue were pretty entertaining. This was certainly the overwrought caricature of the American luxury car, as embodied by the top Cadillac, Imperial and Lincoln models (interestingly Cadillac and Lincoln also showed up under “Family Cars”).
For the most traditional upper-crust luxury statement in 1959, it was hard to top Rolls-Royce and its “sportier” Bentley sibling.
Glamorous European/American hybrid styling and Chrysler V8 power make the Facel one of my favorites. Lancia meanwhile was busy showcasing Italian styling with clean lines that would set the pace for the 1960s.
Cadillac turned to Italian Design House Pininfarina for its 1959 update of the ultra-expensive Eldorado Brougham. While exceedingly low volume, this car nonetheless gave a glimpse at the styling direction the entire Cadillac brand would take in 1961. The Imperial, meanwhile, remained unabashedly American with its chrome-slathered update of 1957’s “Forward Look.” Mercedes, by contrast, seemed positively subdued from a design standpoint, emphasizing top quality and Germanic driving dynamics to lure well-heeled American motoring sophisticates.
So that’s a wrap for Motor Trend‘s recap of Family Cars and Luxury Cars circa 1959. Tune back in tomorrow to check out Sports Cars and GT Cars.
I’m a little bit surprised that the Studebaker Lark wasn’t featured but the Hawk was in a piece called “Family Cars.” Besides that, if I were to buy something on this list (price being no object), I would love that Facel-Vega! Such automotive ecstasy was described lividly to me by my dad, who grew up in Palm Beach. Sure, they weren’t common as Fords or Chevrolets over there, but they were present enough for him to form a distinct impression of them being great!
In 1956-57 Studebaker had heavily hyped the Hawk as “The Family Sports Car”, so maybe that was it. Or I could also see it being included simply because of its 120.5 wheelbase and 5 passenger configuration.
I guess nobody quite knew what was supposed to be a “coupe” or “sedan”, just like today!
Check back on Thursday when we’ll cover “Compacts” and “Economy Cars” to see the blurb on the Lark. MT’s classifications of the cars was slightly random, and I think the Hawk defied categorization to a degree, so they just plopped it into their biggest category.
The illustration for “Luxury Cars” seems very close to the fun automotive artwork of Bruce McCall.
“Horizontal fins blending into the rear deck for design versatility” re the 1959 Chev. Exactly what versatility was that may I ask? Perhaps randomness of criticisms from your neighbours who bought more sensible looking cars or kept their 1958 instead? Or offering a play surface for the neighbourhood kids to play marbles on the back trunk? I don’t see versatile when I see those gargantuan fins. Don’t get me wrong, this is one of my favourite classic cars, to which I gravitate at any car show to lap up. These articles seem to be bereft of any actual criticism.
1959 produced some of the most beautiful cars, possessed with some of the angriest faces ever seen on an automobile. This model year is deserving of the special attention it receives for its artistry and extravagance. Thanks for posting these.
Remember, one does not criticize those who advertise.
I agree that the 1959 models tend to be some pretty beautiful designs. I don’t know that they look angry, or menacing, but many do seem to see that. In fact, with the quad headlights, the anthropomorphic qualities seemed to be diminished, in my opinion.
Perhaps it was just a case of perfecting the look before moving in a completely new direction in the 1960s. Jet age became Space age and then the clean and square lines took over.
“These articles seem to be bereft of any actual criticism.”
Welcome to the automotive press of the 1950’s. No, you did not critique the manufacturer’s (especially Detroit’s) offerings. Ever. Otherwise, you risked a total meltdown of your advertising budget, as the offended manufacturer pulled all advertising.
Where I’m surprised is that they thumbnails on each brand gave an estimated depreciation of the car. With some very quick scramblings to lessen the shock of the worst depreciators of the bunch (looking at you Edsel).
However, the roughly equal depreciation on a Jaguar needed no explanation or apology. They didn’t advertise enough.
I love the description of the Rolls Royce’s automatic transmission being the product of British and American patents. As in a GM Hydra Matic with some minor tweaks applied abroad.
+1
No criticism of any car: sounds like Motor Trend today.
Motor Trend recently tested a Cadillac XT4 and the reviewers were clearly underwhelmed. A person didn’t have to read between the lines to get this.
No doubt there was a lot of “puffery” in this issue, and no major advertisers were offended, but a fair number of observers did view the 1959 GM offerings as being an improvement over the 1958 models from a styling standpoint – particularly the Buick and the Oldsmobile.
Ah yes, the Facel Vega will do for the D family please! 🙂
Actually I believe in 1959 my Grandfather was driving a 1954 Mercury, this information would have been irrelavant since he wouldn’t buy his first new car for another 8 years.
It wasn’t until 15 years after this piece that I was of the right age to subscribe to the Big 3 of car magazines, but even at that point, MT was more often full of suck up articles than C&D or R&T. Even today, when I (very) occasionally look at the MT website, they rarely have anything bad to say.
I can understand the Studebaker soldiering on with a flathead six but seeing those gigantic, swoopy Chrysler products available with flatheads is weird. Acceleration must have been leisurely.
It doesn’t surprise me – by that point overhead cams motors had been around for 50 years, so overhead valve motors were already dated.
I am kind of surprised that the Studebaker Hawk’s depreciation was so modest – although the car’s price was fairly low too, so the percentage might have put it in the squarely average range – not bad. Also GN, the Hawk’s fins were the same as they had been in 1957-58. Only the trim on them was different. The big change was the axing of the 2 door hardtops from the line, leaving only the pillared coupes (and axing the 289 engine from the option list as well).
Also of interest was Ford Motor Company’s pricing. Edsel was encapsulated in the middle 2/3 of the Ford range. Poor Edsel had no pricing real estate of its own, and was stuck with a fairly skinny model lineup too.
It was interesting to note that Chrysler was lauded for stronger punch in low and mid range acceleration – a backhanded observation that the 392 (and prior versions) hemi had been weak there in comparison to most other big-inch V8s of the era. The 413 that replaced it had more traditional low-end punch.
I really liked my 59 Plymouth and would be very tempted to buy one new if I had the chance. Only make mine a Sport Fury hardtop or convertible this time.
JPC, thanks for the feedback on the fins, I amended the copy to make it more accurate.
For a domestic manufacturer, the Hawk was a unique product – at least until the four-seat Thunderbird appeared. It most likely had a small, but dedicated, audience. I’d imagine that nice used examples didn’t sit on the lot for very long.
Studebaker’s problems were that the Hawk’s fanbase was small, and there was no similar enthusiasm for the sedans, wagons and conventional hardtop coupes.
“Buick’s new features: … a rigid new K frame with boxed siderails”
I guess the real life Frog #1 read this issue!
I couple years ago a saw my first Mercedes 300D 4dr Hardtop – a very impressive automobile, so that would be my first choice out of this group closely followed by the Citroen Estate & Facel Vega.
What’s with all the ellipses throughout the reviews? It’s like reading an email from my grandparents
State of the graphic arts, circa 1959!!!
I just find it distracting… Ellipses should be used only to indicate omissions… I’ll forgive the occasional ellipsis for dramatic effect… But this is just weird to read… Like when people “use” inverted commas “everywhere” for “no” reason.
Laugh “out” loud!
You are so “right…” about that! I often have to change misused ellipses to (often) em dashes in things that people submit for publication.
About a decade later. The ad industry was putting everything. In incomplete sentences. It was all over the place, From the mid-’60s to sometime in the late ’70s.
I rather like the Ambassadors for their upright lines. I think the ’58 and ’59 models were the nicest looking of the bunch.
For many years a mint, original 1958 Ambassador Cross Country hardtop wagon showed up at local auto shows. That is one rare car today.