(first posted 8/24/2016) In America circa 1955, the Baby Boom was in full swing, postwar prosperity and optimism were strong, and new suburban developments were cropping up across the land. All good reasons to get a new car, and one vehicle type that was tempting buyers in ever greater numbers was the station wagon. Though the wagon body style had been around for decades, during the 1950s the vehicles became family favorites, and domestic automakers offered a broad array of choices. So it was only natural that Motor Trend would take a comprehensive look at the station wagon segment, pointing out pros and cons for all the U.S. brands.
Open the August 1955 issue of Motor Trend and on the first page you’d see an ad for the Plymouth Suburban. Excellent placement given the cover headline topic, and Chrysler Corporation was the only automaker to run wagon advertising in that issue.
For the ultimate in family cookouts on the go, check out the Camp-‘N’-Wagon. The $295 accessory ($2,649 adjusted!) provided a water spigot and cooking area to make meals a cinch no matter how far into the woods a family dared to venture.
When it came to the inside of “covered wagons” for the 1950s, surely no other make could top the Plymouth with its ribbed “rubber resin alloy” headliner.
Though really more truck than wagon–and a true precursor to today’s SUVs–the Willy’s was still showcased in the wagon article, though Motor Trend noted that it was more of a rugged backwoodsman than a versatile family hauler.
There were plenty of choices and configurations available for American wagons in 1955, from the thriftiest 2-door, 2-seat 6-cylinder all the way to a glitzy 4-door, 3-seat, V8-powered “luxury” wagon. Plus, for the first time, you could even get air conditioning factory-installed on a wagon, on the new Chevrolet and Pontiac A-bodies (that must have wreaked havoc on the Sloan Ladder of price and prestige: the more expensive Buick wagon, with the slightly older-design B-body, did not offer built-in A/C).
So imagine you were shopping in 1955 and had decided a wagon was the right choice for your needs. Which one would you pick?
For me, I’d have gone with the Ford Country Squire, V8 of course. Ford durability and functionality would be perfect for a utility vehicle, plus who could resist Di-Noc wood paneling for a little Fifties-style showboating?
I’ll second the Ford Country Squire, in black with V8 and air. We had a ’56 so equipped, and I remember it as a great car, although I was awfully young. The A/C must have been a dealer add on, though. I’m not sure how widespread factory air was then.
According to the article, when it came to station wagons, air conditioning was only offered as a factory option on Chevrolet, Pontiac…and Rambler!
It wasn’t a popular option because of the price. In 1955, it was a $345 option on the Rambler, which, adjusted for inflation, is $3,097 today!
Factory air conditioning cost $565 on the Chevrolet and $592 on the Pontiac. Adjusted for inflation, those figures equate to $5,073 and $5,315, respectively, in 2016.
The A/C unit on the Rambler was the only system that like today, was fully integrated under the hood like a modern system, which is reflected in it’s more wallet-friendly (for the time) price.
Didn’t Pontiac switch to a fully integrated system for 1954?
Correct Geeber. The 1954 Pontiac had a fully integrated dash system, with all components under the hood. Likewise the 1954 Nash with Weather-Eye. Each claims to have been the first with this system.
Chevy went with the fully integrated system in 1955. Curiously, Ford had a dash integrated system in 1956 or so, then went to a hang-on unit in 1959. It wasn’t until 1965 that the fully integrated system returned.
Interesting – factory A/C not available in Buick wagons but available in the lower divisions of Chevrolet and Pontiac. Dealers in places such as Texas, Florida, California, and Arizona must have adding it to cars before delivery. Nash/Kelvinator was a real pioneer with integrated A/C, and contemporary reports were that it worked well.
Factory A/C on larger GM cars was trunk mounted, hence not available on the Buick wagon. Chrysler Airtemp was also trunk mounted at the time, so not an option for wagons.
Yes. 1955 Plymouth AC. There were aftermarket hang-on underdash AC units available by then though.
The wagon’s base prices were about $2000 in 1955, with the A/C near $600. By the late 60’s the wagons base price is around $3000 but the A/C is $360 for a Chevrolet and $420 for Pontiac (and Olds or Buick). This shows applying inflation indexing to a single item is useless.
You’ve shown that the price of air conditioning actually dropped in real dollars as time went on, due to greater economies of scale and automakers figuring out how to make it in a more cost-effective manner. This is a big reason why it became more popular.
Applying the inflation index to the cost back in 1955 shows why it was not popular – it was hugely expensive, both then and now, and thus added a considerable amount to the total cost of the car. This was particularly crucial when car loans were often limited to two years, and a buyer was expected to have a 20 percent down payment.
Now A/C is nearly standard on everything. Ten years ago it was optional on some basic cars, for about $800. I think that the price in 1955 was high because they did not expect to sell very many (and maybe could not build every car with one), so the price was high, but the cost to build was probably quite high too.
Air conditioned houses were not common either.
The inflation index is really a measure of the dollars value relative to the past, with the early 80’s (around 1983-84) defined to be about 100%.
“power steering” “helpful” “not necessary”.
Love it!! Truer words never spoken that
apply as much today as when that was
published.
Excellent presentation on the station wagon history. A great American success story!
The SUV design evolution is moving toward re-creating a station wagon typology once again!
Gary
Particularly if demand for big sedans declines to the point where the only cost-effective way to make one is to borrow the CUV’s front clip and doors.
The ‘white collar workhorse’, complete with necktie and smoke, is an interesting presage of telecommuting. I doubt that anyone took up the suggestion. A newspaper reporter would more likely take notes in shorthand and later dictate by phone; a radio remote would use a panel truck with a real desk inside. There wasn’t a situation where the reporter would need to type on the tailgate.
Is there anything that better exhibits mid-century (20th) Americana than the family station wagon? Our cub scout pack den mother had a 1966 Bonneville Safari wagon. Of course the entire pack of 8-10 year-olds fit in it with ‘Mom’ behind the wheel.
It’s not hard to see why the Ford was the most popular – it was a really good looking wagon, and quite functional. I could have been very happy with either a Country Squire or Country Sedan.
If cost were no object, a New Yorker Town & Country would be in my driveway. The 55 Chrysler wagon was a beauty, and this would have been a real luxury.
However, the Stude-Homer in me is also intrigued by the 2 door Conestoga wagon. It would have to be a Commander version with the V8 and probably a 3 speed/overdrive unit. I think the 56 looks better as a wagon than the 55, but I could still live with the fabulous fish face. So, in short, it would have been a really tough choice.
I’d also take the Ford Country Squire, but I have a soft spot for the Rambler wagons.
Unlike most of the advertising hype/slogans of the time period; Ford’s ad slogan “The Wagon Masters” contained more than a little truth.
Ford always seemed to pay special attention to wagons, offering more models, variations and equipment than GM and Chrysler. It seemed as if Ford designed wagons from scratch, as opposed to GM that just cobbled together an existing sedan. The extra attention paid dividends, as Ford wagons always seemed more popular.
GM farmed out wagon bodies at this time, I’m guessing they considered it more of a “niche” market.
I’ll take the ’54 Conestoga Wagon, or the ’57-’57 Packardbaker wagons — which were named for famous golf courses.
Or maybe I’ll wait for the Sceptre wagon.
I’d go for the New Yorker Deluxe as well. But what color? Maybe teal with a white roof. Or black with a silver roof…
Town and Country for sure!
Why a wagon? Because they look better than a sedan when done properly – as demonstrated by most of the examples within this fantastic piece. Thanks GN.
B series Falcon or equivalent Commodore?
For me Falcon looks better, shame it wasn’t available in the wider trim variations.
give me the Chrysler and a garage big enough to put it in. Second choice the Dodge with an 8 cyl.
Re the pic at the top of the article, you know, I don’t know much about boats, but shouldn’t they have a trailer, or something? Are they going to drag it home?
Problem with the Chevrolets and, I assume, other GM wagons of this generation was the finicky latches for the upper tailgate. Little sprung nubs snapped into holes in the telescoping track to hold it up at various positions. But they would often fail to snap in fully, and the upper gate would either fall (no sprung hinges) or drop lopsided. They also squeaked.
In the (just barely) middle class, Baby Boomer “demand area” suburban neighborhood that I grew up in; it was rare to see a driveway that did not have an American station wagon in the driveway.
Twenty-somethings of today just cannot comprehend how desirable a new(er) house in the ‘burbs with a Ford, Chevy or Mopar station wagon in the driveway, was for the WWII/Korean Conflict generation.
The few people here who recall what I post here might recognize this pic. My Depression babies/Korean conflict generation Parents thought they “had arrived” with this house, car & family! Thanks to a strong union job and careful budgeting they both had come SO far in their first 40 years!
An irony: while postwar homes were not all that large (2 or 3 bedrooms), we Baby Boomers in turn wanted smaller cars but Brady Bunch sized bungalows.
HOW true! The above pictured house was bought for 4 children, was 4 bedrooms & 2 bathrooms, 1800 square feet, was considered “almost” upscale for the time period. The 3 bedroom/1 bath house my Parents had before, purchased with Dad’s “GI Bill” financing, was about half the square footage of this one.
This house would be rejected for today’s twenty-somethings, with one or two kids, as being too small or “basic”.
Very true. The majority of my neighborhood was built between 1946 and 1950 (though with outliers as far back as 1910 and as recent as the 90’s). My house is one of the ’46 models, 4 br/1850 sf (above grade), and it’s one of the larger ones. The majority are 3 br/1.5 ba of about 1500 sf. That seemed to be more of the standard at the time unless you were living in a distinctly affluent area.
Also “guilty as charged” on thinking more is needed, even though I’m a thirty-something (36) rather than a twenty-something. I’m married but we don’t have kids (yet) and one of the things that appealed to us about this house was the size. It’s got a recently finished basement family room and bath that brings the total square footage to about 2300. When house-hunting last year, our lower bound in size was 1500 sf, and we don’t even plan to have a large family…but we both grew up in small houses and wanted to avoid the claustrophobic conditions of our youth! Different times.
Town and Country, or really any of the Mopars. Those Exner looks, a Hemi and Powerflite are too much to pass up.
My folks had a red with white (cream?) 55 Country sedan and 1 aunt and uncle had 2 solid color 55 Country Sedans: a black one and a bottle green one. These would be the 1st wagons that would be bought by my extended family. After those wagons, all 7 of my uncles would eventually buy a series of wagons as their families grew. My favorites were a 58 Nomad one uncle owned and a 65 Country Sedan another uncle owned.
Just in case anyone is interested, the boat is a ’55 Century Coronado. Trying to launch or retrieve the boat on that sand beach probably would have buried the Safari up to the axle pretty quickly.
That’s very hard beach sand. The car doesn’t even make a Mark in it. Those old wooden boats towed so well that boat trailers weren’t even needed. They just sort of floated along behind the car.
Just stay close to the shore line. 🙂
Century Coronado with “automotive styling”. Painted trim over varnished mahogany, it was styled by Richard Arbib whose work includes the Packard Panamanian show car and the asymmetric Hamilton wristwatches. I just saw a Coronado at a car show in Newburyport MA. These were powered by Cadillac or Chrysler engines and were the fasted production boats in their day.
If I was going 4-door I’d take the Town & Country, no question. But I have a weakness for 2-door wagons, so on that side, can’t argue with the original Nomad. Grace and space.
IMO the 2 door Ford wagon, with the trim level that included the chrome sweeping spear top of the front fender/down the side trim, with two tone paint, was just as (if not more) desirable that the Chebby wagon.
Ford’s 3 speed automatic transmission was far superior to the Chebby’s ancient, “slip ‘n slide” 2 speed PowerGlide slushbox transmission.
Most people forget that the Chebby’s brand new for 1955 V8 engine had some “teething pains” like excessive oil consumption and over heating.
Ford’s Y-block V8 engine was at least proven and reliable, with more real world desirable bottom end grunt (torque) than the high revving Chebby 265.
Opinions, like gas mileage, may vary.
I dunno, the PowerGlide wasn’t really all that old in 1955. And was the original FordOMatic (the three speed that acted like a 2 speed most of the time because you had to manually engage first) really all that great?
I find early automatic transmissions fascinating because there were so many theories about how one should work. It was the wild west compared to the late 1960s when they were all pretty much the same in concept.
Drive the two automatic transmission equipped car and I believe you will notice the difference.
IIRC, having not driven either car for over 30 years, low gear was available on the Ford when needed, if the gas pedal was floored (such as shooting across intersections) or if low was manually selected.
The two speed PowerGlide was a dangerously slow dog when TRYING to merge on expressways or crowed roads. Either it would Leisurely Lug along in high gear or downshift to low, screaming it’s guts out and not making much progress.
My calling the PowerGlide “ancient” was perhaps a tad bit too harsh for the model year in this article. The PG hung on for SO long (into the 1970’s!) that I tend to think of it as “ancient”. In 1955 it wasn’t all that old; just slow and inefficient always.
The Nomad, with the “Three on the Tree” manual transmission with overdrive would had been my Chevy Choice.
I agree that the early automatics were a “mixed bag” of features and detriments.
The Powerglide wasn’t inefficient. In fact its intrinsic efficiency, about the best of any automatic during the 50s-60s (in terms of parasitic losses) is one of the reasons it became so popular with drag racers.
Paul: So why did Powerglide equipped Chevies come with a more powerful engine? So the ‘Glides could keep up with the sticks shift cars, that’s why!
Comparing any old-school automatic to a manual is irrelevant. of course the manuals were more efficient, and gave better performance. But many buyers wanted the convenience of the automatic, pure and simple. And until the three-speed automatics came along in the late 50s, the PG was quite up to snuff.
I’d like you to confirm that the old Fordomatic automatically shifted into Low on full throttle. That’s not what I remember. It was essentially the same as a PG, unless Low was selected, and that was a rough shift. And it was not recommended to do regularly.
While there’s no doubt that the three-speed TorqueFlite and FMX were better, the Chevy’s high-winding V8s did overcome the lack of an intermediate gear to some extent.
In 1955, the PG was not in the least bit compromised.
And don’t forget that the PG only used Drive (unless Low was selected) until 1953. That was the reason the engines with PG were more powerful.
Paul: My last experience with the 1950’s Ford/Borg Warner automatic transmissions was in the late 1970’s, in my gorgeous ’53 Studebaker Champion Regal Starlight hardtop. Perhaps the passing of time has dimmed my memory.
I do recall it starting off in first gear if you floored the gas or manually shifted it into low gear. Other wise it would start off in second gear and automatically shift into high/3rd gear.
I (perhaps incorrectly?) assumed that the Fords were the same? The “old timer” friends of my Father and Uncles told me the Studie and Fords used the same automatic tranny. I tried several times to purchase and early/mid 1950’s Ford several times, never succeeded.
The Aamco dealer, who eventually rebuilt the automatic tranny in the Studie, told me he “combed thru his Ford parts” to find the needed parts to rebuild the Studie’s tranny. He also advised not to manually shift it into low too often. Since I bought their “Lifetime Warranty” on the rebuild I ignored their sage advice and used low gear for take offs almost every time. The Studie was SO much more peppier using low gear!
Well, looking like Paul likes the PowerGlide automatic transmission…….and I don’t.
Paul sez toh-mahtto-ooh, I say tow-may-toh.
🙂
Mark, Studebaker’s Automatic Drive (DG), developed in conjunction with BW’s Detroit Gear Division in 1950, was a totally different unit than the the Fordomatic, which was designed by a different unit of BW. The Studebaker Automatic Drive was the most advanced automatic of its time, because it offered a direct drive option (lock up torque converter). It started in intermediate gear (2), but Low could be manually selected. But high production costs forced Studebaker to switch to BW’s cheaper unit in 1955, essentially the same unit as the Fordomatic. The Fordomatic (and the 1955-up Studebaker BW unit) used only two of its three gears normally. Low could be selected for extremely steep grades, but was not recommended to be used for normal driving. Curiously, some six cylinder Flightomatics (1956-1957) did start in Low automatically, but that’s not the case with Ford’s Fordomatic, which only ever started in 2nd.
It’s not a matter of whether I “like or dislike” the PG. It has its strength and weaknesses. I covered all those at this post: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/powerglide-gms-greatest-hit-or-deadly-sin/
Ahhh, the fog of misinformation and assumed facts before the invention of the internet and search engines!
Not the first time “the old timers” were incorrect/misinformed and passed on their incorrect info to me.
If I had been a new car buyer in this time period; I think I would had waited a few more years until Mopar’s 3 speed TorqueFlite appeared on the scene.
But, I guess if you didn’t know any better……
Thanks for the replies, Paul! I always enjoy your articles here and our internet discourse.
According to the 1955 Ford brochure, with the Fordomatic:
Automatic “low-gear” starts with wide-open throttle; automatic intermediate gear.
Also:
no electrical or vacuum connections
(I’m pretty sure there used to be an Edit feature here)
But anyway, in the 1956 Ford brochure they call the automatic transmission “Speed-trigger Fordomatic” and “automatic low gear starts with selector in Dr position”. And also mention the availability of “Select-Aire Conditioner” (only with V-8s), apparently integrated with also integrated heater/AC controls. You can see the dashboard top AC vents in the larger dashboard artwork. I had no idea that they ever did this. 1957 Fords with AC have a bunch of vertical vents across the top of the dashboard just under the windshield.
I drove a 63 Impala with a power glide and a 327 V8. Performance was good from a standstill, but there was no passing gear. I also drove a 50 Buick with dynaflow, which was much worse for performance in drive. I would not call either transmission slip and slide. Neither were as good as the Chrysler torqueflite though, which I did not get to drive but my parents did own one.
’55 210 Handyman. 265 Power-Pack and a stick.
Nomad’s tempting but the rear window was prone to leaking. The regular wagons had a different design in the back.
The two door Studebaker wagon, Just because it looks kinda goofy.
I love it.
In the picture from the review it looks like a Vega/Monza wagon with a body kit. (too me anyway) I know it was probably a lot bigger than a Vega but still,
Same wheelbase and length as the Ford, in fact. It was 5 inches narrower, though.
Great read here — thanks for posting.
I have an affection for 1950s Chrysler wagons, but I think I’d opt for the Windsor rather than the more showy New Yorker.
I do wonder what the Chrysler’s $75 removable child’s seat looked like. I bet that to modern eyes, it would look like a death trap.
GN: you’ve done it aGN. Thanks for this. I have many 50s MTs, but have never had even a look at this one.
THese are always a treat.
So, what ended the popularity and availability of these BBWs ? (Big Beautiful Wagon, for the record)
Because they were basically gone before the Great SUV-breakthrough, weren’t they ?
Minivans, and to a lesser extent smaller wagons (think of how many FWD A-body GM wagons and Taurus wagons used to roam the roads). But primarily minivans; I have to wonder what collective wagon sales looked at in 1983 (the last year pre-minivan) and then in ’86 once each of the Big 3 had one.
Dang, I forgot the minivans / MPVs ! Thanks ! It has been almost 35 years since the Caravan was introduced. And the Renault Espace on this side of the pond.
Station wagons are more popular here right now than ever before. From the B-segment Renault Clio to the E-segment Audi A6 etc., so take your pick.
Right into the eighties the wagon was bought and used as an ideal mixture between a family car and a commercial vehicle. But that all changed with the introduction of the “life-style wagons”, mainly from Audi and BMW. Since then their popularity has been growing.
You’re forgetting SUVs. The smaller ones, like the Cherokee and Ford Explorer became mega-hits. The Explores sold almost a half-million per year in its best years. It became the Country Squire of its time.
Agree! I always regarded the Explorer as the modern version of the Country Squire station wagon.
A narrower, slower, tippier, worse handling, smaller-on-the-inside Country Squire replacement.
I just never “got” SUV’s; never understood why people spent Big Bucks for an inferior vehicle based on a lowly commercial workman’s pick up truck.
Because it was really the closest thing to those 1950’s-1960’s wagons the buyers rode in as children. That Buick wagon also cost Big Bucks compared to the sedan it was based on.
Since Johannes referenced “before the Great SUV-breakthrough” I was looking for the previous cause. Generally speaking on the death of the (non-enthusiast) wagon, I think the minivans dealt the mortal blow and then the SUVs finished the job.
It’s was more like a 1-2 punch. Keep in mind that SUV sales had been growing strongly ever since the early-mid 70s, long before minivans came on the scene. There’s little doubt in my mind that the Blazer, Bronco, Wagoneer/Cherokee (SJ) etc, as well as the rapidly growing sales of the Suburban were already having a very substantial impact on wagon sales. Obviously not a death blow yet, but it hurt. And the growing popularity of SUVs in the 70s and early 80s made them cool, image-wise, and that’s directly what made the Cherokee (XJ), Blazer S10, Bronco II and other compact SUVs so madly popular when they arrived in 1983, a full year before the Chrysler minivans.
It would be interesting to compare all SUV sales to minivan sales during the 70s, 80s, 90s and up.
And for those who really liked the hauling capacity, you also had the growth of extended and club cab pickups. It was a car for all seasons done in by seemingly more specialized vehicles (mpv = people mover, suv = off-road, pickup = heavy hauler) whose specialized capabilities are seldom if ever used.
I’ll keep my Golf Sportswagen, thank you 🙂
The first gas crisis hurt big wagon sales, families cut long vacation trips for the time being. But also, vans, both mini and max, got buyers looking for usable space.
Not that long ago the American wagons were still the preferred choice for a hearse conversion here. Lots of them are still in business, in a way these are also commercial vehicles.
For a few years the bestselling wagon in America was the Ford Pinto.
Baby boomers and Gen X kids who were so thoroughly sick of riding around in their parents’ dorky wagons that they wouldn’t be caught dead in one. With their smaller families, sport sedans ruled and for those who needed more room, minivans.
And now, the generation that rode around in minivans is killing that market off as well.
Yup! In the 1970’s and early 1980’s riding around in “Ya Ma’s Wagon” was the epitome of un-coolness and total geekdom. Used station wagons brought the lowest price of any body style car.
Today “long roofs” are becoming in vogue and collector’s cars.
What ?? “Ya Ma’s Wagon”….un-coolness….total geekdom… ??
No way, Yves Montand (cool !!) drove a US wagon in masterpiece “Le Cercle Rouge”.
It has even been featured here:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-cinema/cc-cinema-the-cars-of-le-circle-rouge-americans-in-paris-and-marseilles/
Yves is French.
Need I say more?
🙂
The French have good taste; remember the ’65 or ’66 racing Mustang in “Un Homme et une Femme.”
Neil: And don’t forget the various Peugeots, Renaults and Simcas foisted off on the unsuspecting American buying public! Car that were awesome in “LaBelle France” but total dogs in the American market.
🙂
Mike’s mom in Stranger Things was probably a more typical Colony Park owner.
What happened, IMO, was CAFE. Cars were required to be more fuel efficient than trucks, so the “family truckster” literally became a truck.
The CAFE regs on what constitutes a “light truck” are loose enough that all they would’ve had to do is revive the practice of giving the wagons separate nameplates. If that.
Anyone recall the early1960’s tv show “Hazel”?
Even though the George Baxter family had only one child and could had done well with a 2 door hardtop or 4 door sedan; they always had a Ford station wagon in their driveway.
Such was the “mind set” of that generation of Americans. A station wagon in the driveway was a symbol of having achieved the American dream, of having succeeded, of having “made it”.
I watch Hazel everyday on Antenna TV. When the series started the Baxters just had a 62 Country Squire. Not long after the series started, a Falcon was seen in the driveway and occasionally Mr. Baxter was seen getting out of it. In 63 the Falcon was replaced by a Galaxie 500 (XL?) convertible and the wagon “disappeared”. For 64, a newer Galaxie convertible (still red on red, like the 63) replaced the older model and a Country Squire returned, also a 64. In 65, a 4 door Galaxie replaced both cars, apparently, as no 65 wagon replaced the 64.
When the series changed networks for it’s final season (or 2?), the Fords dissappeared and Hazel occasionally was seen driving a Buick Special/Skylark.
Oddly, once their only child hit a certain age, the wagons dissappeared while in my experience folks traded sedans for the “modern” station wagon: the SUV, once their kids hit an age where there were lots of after school activities that they needed to be driven to….along with a carload of friends.
The fact that the Baxter’s cherubic son, Harold, is about my age makes want to weep….or scream….sometimes.
Hazel was an amazing Ford Show. Need to do a CC: cinema on that. George’s client had a series of Continental sedans, and his sister drove a Thunderbird.
Also, one of the few shows on American TV that dealt with class vs. wealth…
And Johannes, on my first trip to the Netherlands, I checked into my hotel in Venlo, flipped on the TV -and Hazel was the first thing I ever saw on Dutch TV!
But keep in mind that the station wagon also doubled as a utility vehicle, as pickup trucks were not typically owned by urban dwellers yet. And that extended family (grandparents typically) were often passengers for trips to church on Sunday morning, so when you only had one vehicle, it probably made much more sense to have a wagon than a 2-door hardtop.
The AMC television series that so brilliantly depicted the 1950’s and 1960’s time periods, “Madmen”, always had the “Betty Draper” housewife character driving a Ford station wagon.
I recall a 1959 Country Squire and a 1968 Country Squire being featured.
Betty Draper had a Mercury wagon for a season or 2. But not sure the model year. One episode she had a tow truck driver help her out and she was kind of flirting with him.
But the ’68 Squire was prominent in final seasons, shown on a trip to see son at summer camp.
I’ve always loved wagons for their usefulness if nothing else from small ( Datsun 510 1974 I think ) to the biggest ( Ford Country Squire 1976 ) and everything in between. I miss that market segment . I guess SUVs have taken over and I don’t think for the better necessarily.
My father purchased a new 1956 Ford Ranch Wagon in July 1956, replacing our 1949 Kaiser Special. We had just moved to the country up a 2 mile steep hill that was a slow haul in the Kaiser. I was 12 years old at the time so the Ranch Wagon was the car I learned to drive four years later. (Actually we had a 200 foot lane up through our 4 acre apple orchard so I began driving the wagon almost immediately at age 12) It was equipped with Thunderbird V-8, 3 speed manual transmission and dual exhaust that rumbled nicely, especially with the tailgate window in the up position. We had no clock, radio, or power anything, and of course no air conditioning. It cost $2700 less $400 trade for the 49 Kaiser. The upholstery was hardy vinyl that felt like leather and was covered with ranch brands – very nice look. Dad got the wagon because we had to haul two garbage cans to the dump every Saturday plus the Kaiser just couldn’t make the steep hill. Overall it was a great car that I loved driving but it started rusting out after two years and it was a constant battle to keep it looking decent for the seven years we had it. It was traded in 1963 for a new Corvair Monza with four on the floor. By then we had garbage pickup service! The second worst problem with the Ranch Wagon after the rust problem was the dual exhaust system. We had very rough winters in northern Pennsylvania in those days and lots of salt was used on the roads. It seemed that every year at least one muffler and tailpipe would have to be replaced. That really irked my father and he began changing them himself.
I always thought wagons provided the best combination of styling, cargo-room, ride and handling.
Especially compared to many vans and SUVs.
Sadly, if one wants a wagon today, most of the selection it the US is between a few pricey new imports, or even more pricey vintage models.
Though you can still find a relatively affordable Taurus/Sable wagon (if it doesn’t wind up needing a tranny rebuild) or the somewhat more expensive Toyota Camry/Corolla and Volvo 240 models.
Happy Motoring, Mark
Make mine a Chevy. 210 Townsman, v8 and manual/od, in pale aqua with dog dishes and blackwalls.
Our first wagon was a ’59 Chevy Brookwood. Two door version because dad was afraid of us opening rear doors and falling out. Brookwood was low end trim, but well equipped with V-8, Powerglide, power steering, push button radio, heater/defroster and whitewalls.
For those who are interested to see some Canadian wagons oddities like the 1956 Meteor http://oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/Ford-Canada/Meteor/1956-Meteor-Brochure-Cdn-Fr/slides/1956_Meteor_Fr-10.html and Canadian Dodge wagons with Plymouth bodies and interiors aka “Plodge wagons”.
http://oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/Chrysler-Canada/Dodge/1956-Dodge-Foldout/slides/1956_Dodge_Foldout_Cdn-02.html
I cannot imagine Studebaker ever sold very many of those 2-door wagons. I have never, ever seen one, and didn’t even know they existed until now.
My wife’s been driving a BMW E39 touring (wagon in BMW speak) for 14 years now, a pair of them. Obviously much newer, but the utility stays the same, I’m a fan. Shame BMW decided not to bring over the 5 series wagons some time ago now, they’re nice cars.
Back to the 50s I was dumbfounded by the rear mounted A/C. I’m no expert, but I’ve some knowledge of those cars and I’d never heard of it. Talk about a convoluted system and trying to cool people from the rear instead of to their face… I wonder how well that worked, especially for the guy in the illustration with a hat on.
Probably standard for the era, but interesting how the more upmarket cars, the Buicks and Chryslers (not Chrysler products) were the HP kings and how close the rest of them were, at least on the V8s.
I had no idea anyone offered split rear seats in the 50s. Did they then disappear until the Vista Cruiser and then the Clamshells with their forward-facing 3rd seats (which compromised 2nd row comfort, as I recall)? What was the first two-row to have them after the 50s?
The Clamshell GM wagons offered a split rear seat.
Due to seating access, the Vista Cruiser had a split rear seat
The 1986 Ford Taurus wagon had a split back seat but GM counterparts did not.
I’d choose the Ford because dealerships and service was plentiful where I would have been, had I been back then. Besides that, Ford.
My fathers first new car, as far as I knew, was a 1957 Ford Ranch Wagon, 2dr, six, 3sp, heater. Black, NOTHING else.
I remember him having overheating problems in the summer. He wound up leaving the rear-opening hood open to the emergency latch (or whatever it was called) and driving it around like that. Guess it worked.
My parents were a bit later than this, specifically 5 years (1961) but they jumpee on the
“band” wagon with a ’61 Rambler Classic and had a wagon up through their 1978 Chevrolet wagon which they had through ’84. After that, wagons themselves seemed to become scarce, but with the family aging out of them, my Dad seemed happy going back to sedans.
His first car was a ’56 Plymouth, but then moving to 2 Rambler wagons in a row (’61 and ’63) he had a lone Oldsmobile (’65) and then a pair of Ford (moving to full size from mid-size) in ’69 an ’73, followed by the ’78 Chevrolet as the last one. He seemed to prefer the Fords, primarily he liked the rear tailgate much better than the GM clamshell in the early 70’s…once they got rid of the clamshell, he went with the Chevrolet for his ’78.
Probably the impetus for the wagons was when my twin sister and I came along; before he met my Mom my Dad bought his first new car right out of college, a stripper ’56 Plymouth Plaza with flathead and 3 speed column shift, probably only had a heater. My Mom learned to drive on a semi-automatic Chrysler but never was comfortable with a standard, so the Rambler (and all “family” cars following its purchase) was automatic.