(first posted 1/7/2013) Poor Mercury. The beleaguered Ford division just never seemed to hit its stride. Introduced in 1939 as a slightly more upmarket variant of the well-loved Ford V8, it had its own sheetmetal and sold rather respectably, with nearly 65,000 units built in its first model year; but in short order, Mercury became an uptrimmed Ford. With the exception of the natty 1949-51 models, Mercury never got a really unique look. At least, that is, until the mid- to late-’50s.
The mid-price market really took off in the mid- to late-’50s. Makes like Oldsmobile and Buick were making hay as the sun shone, and Ford looked on with jealousy as Buick took third place in U.S. sales. The all-new 1952 Mercury looked a lot like the 1952 Lincoln–which also looked a lot like the 1952 Ford–but that would be corrected quite soon.
It started in 1955 with a refreshed Ford, albeit one still quite similar to the ’52-’54 models under the skin. Mercury was a different story, with an all-new look that did not bear the slightest resemblance to the past year’s model. In 1956 came Lincoln’s turn, with what may have been one of the most elegant American cars of the year. Ford’s models were getting unique identities in keeping with Ford’s desire to out-GM GM. The soon-to-fail Continental and Edsel divisions were also a big part of that, and so was Mercury, which got yet another re-do for 1957.
Thanks to cars like the Buick Special and Oldsmobile 88, most every Detroit auto executive thought fancier and fancier mid-price cars were the way to go. Thus, the 1957-58 Mercury approached luxury- car levels of gadgets, chrome, gizmos and more chrome. The Turnpike Cruiser was the new top-of-the-line model for 1957, and featured such remarkable features as a power “memory” seat. A Turnpike Cruiser convertible paced the 1957 Indy 500, and the future looked bright.
image: Plan59.com
And then everything came crashing down. Nineteen fifty-eight beat the bark off the new car market, and anything plush and pricey took it on the chin. Many car companies introduced “price leader” models, with Studebaker’s frugal Scotsman being the most austere offering. Mercury itself was no exception, hurriedly trotting out an el-cheapo Medalist to stave off the sales drop in the pricier model lines. The Medalist had limited chrome trim (by 1958 standards) and came only in $2,612 four-door hardtop and $2,547 pillared sedan models. Medalists were motivated by a 312 CID V8 with 235 horses.
While automotive Scrooges may have loved the Medalist, the next step up, the Monterey, was much more palatable. In addition to two- and four-door sedans, two- and four-door hardtops and a convertible were available. A bigger engine was also standard, a 383 CID V8 producing 312 gross hp at 4,600 rpm. Cheapskates who wanted a little more chrome could get a Monterey two-door sedan.
If you had more money to burn, the Montclair series came next, as the mid-range model. It had the same available body styles as the Monterey, except for the two-door sedan. As you would expect, interiors were a bit fancier, and there was more chrome trim on the outside. Montclairs used the same 383 V8 as Montereys, but got a slight power bump to 330 hp.
In addition, Turnpike Cruiser versions were available as a two-door or four-door hardtop. The TC had been the top of the line in 1957, but for 1958 was a part of the Montclair series. The TC convertible was gone, too. The surviving models did still retain their “radar pods” on top of the A-pillars, though. By mid-’58, The Edsel was already a disaster, and the TC was probably only their second-worst failure in terms of FoMoCo’s dashed hopes of taking on GM.
Station wagons were considered a separate series, but were largely based on the Montclair and Monterey. Six-passenger two- and four-door hardtop station wagons were offered in Commuter and Voyager trim, plus a nine-passenger Commuter and woody-look Colony Park. All wagons were pillarless, a rare and little-seen bodystyle outside of the Oldsmobile Fiesta and Buick Caballero wagons. The rarest wagon was the higher-trim Voyager two-door wagon, with a mere 568 produced.
The main reason the Turnpike Cruiser went to second-banana status was because there was a new line topper, the Park Lane, which was meant to be a Buick Roadmaster fighter. Ironically, that same year Buick introduced an even more expensive model than the Roadmaster, the Series 700 Limited, which was priced in the $5,000 range. Sadly for both Buick and Mercury, more expensive models were about the last thing needed once it became clear a recession was going to royally screw up new car sales.
But no one could have guessed the roller coaster ride of 1955-57 was going to crash when the Turnpike Cruiser, Park Lane and Edsel were put on the production schedule. These cars would have done well in 1955. And the ’58 Park Lane was quite a car, even if sales were less than wonderful, at 5,241 four-door hardtops, 3,158 two-door hardtops and just 853 drop-tops like this one.
Park Lanes set themselves apart from lesser Mercurys with winged front fender peak ornaments, Park Lane script on the C-pillar (relocated to the front fender on convertibles), chrome headlight trim and rectangular-pattern trim plates in the rear bumper pods.
Taillights were suitably Jet Age, and while the same basic design was found on all ’58 models, the Park Lane’s units were even more chrome encrusted. Airplane styling cues on cars, which had begun with the 1948 Cadillac’s fins, were still alive and well in 1958.
Two-tone paint was available, and with the color break on the side (as shown on our featured car), a three-tone effect could be had. This was certainly not a car for shrinking violets. And befitting its “Big M” advertising campaign, these were big boys: The Park Lane had a 125″ wheelbase and 220.2″ overall length. Other 1958 Mercurys were only slightly more petite.
Inside was more of the same. Want power? You could have it all if you checked all the boxes: Power windows, seats, cruise control, Seat-O-Matic (power seat with memory function) and the expected power steering, brakes and automatic transmission. Convertibles mimicked the two-door hardtop’s roofline, right down to the wraparound backlight. Park Lanes came in only three body styles: the $3,944 four-door hardtop, the $3,867 two-door hardtop and the $4,118 convertible.
I found this beautiful rose-and-black Park Lane at the Dahl Ford 75th anniversary car show. I had only been there a couple of minutes, but I immediately deemed it the best car in the show. With only one exception, I still stand by that statement. Another guy looking at it told me that the owner lives down the road from him and had had it completely restored. His wife is an artist and she picked out the colors. I think she chose wisely. What a showboat!
While I’m not typically a fan of continental kits, this car is so over the top that it almost fits in. Still, I can’t help but wonder who would have splurged on one back when these cars were new? “I don’t know, this car looks awfully short. Maybe a continental kit will make it look longer.” I would not, however, want to parallel park this baby.
In this shot, you can see the “Multi Drive Keyboard Control” for the new-for-1958 Multi Drive automatic transmission. Yes, those are push buttons. On the left is “High Performance” button for sprightlier response; on the right was the “Cruising” button, for smoother, economical operation. The typical neutral/park and reverse buttons are in the second row, along with the parking brake release and a hill control function to keep the car from rolling backward while stopped on a grade.
Multi-Drive was standard on all Park Lanes, along with a 360-horse 430 CID V8. This same engine was shared with the Montclair Turnpike Cruiser, but the TC had to make do with a 122″ wheelbase and 213.2″ overall length.
As you can see in the photos, 1958 Mercurys were not drastically different from the 1957s. The biggest difference was up front, where standard quad headlamps and a new bumper-grille mimicking the rear bumper appeared. While 1957 Mercurys could be had with quads, not all states had yet approved them, so dual headlamps could be substituted if necessary. Come 1958, all states had approved them, so all Mercs sported them regardless of their destination.
Parking lamps moved to the grille from their 1957 spot above the headlamps. Also prominent was a gilded “M” below the hoodline. New “rocket” taillamps, wheel covers and side trim rounded out the changes.
But what about 1950s Mercury? What happened? Well, in 1959 the Mercury was extensively redesigned and looked like an all-new car. It retained its special body and was not a Ford carbon copy but, in reality, was not all-new–just a clever re-do of the 1957-58 body. The 1960s were the same deal, with a seemingly new car hiding the 1957 chassis and trim.
That was especially obvious on the two-door and four-door sedans, where the 1957-vintage roofline was quite noticeable despite being somewhat reshaped in 1959.
Nineteen-sixty was the last roundup for unique Mercurys for a good five years. The 1961 models were embarrassingly half-heartedly retrimmed Fords, and the unique selling point for Mercury had disappeared. A Mercury was now a Ford in a tuxedo–and probably a rental.
Nineteen sixty-five would see another chance for Mercury, with cars styled “in the Lincoln Continental tradition”, but that’s a story for another day. For this morning, let’s just bask in the ’50s goodness of this Mercury. What a car!
That’s the biggest rear bumper I have ever seen.
They did not mention that you could get the 58 Mercury with a engine so powerful that would not be duplicated until many years latter. Called the Super Marauder, the 430cid engine fed by triple two-barrel Holly carburetors was an option for 1958 models, It put out 400 HP I had a super marauder in a 1958 Mercury Park Lane Convertible
It’s an impressive looking car,nicer looking than the opposition in my eyes.At least I’m in the right Continent this time!
Those taillamps look like something out of the laboratory set from another 1958 creation, The Fly.
I’d be afraid to get behind them, for fear that I’d get struck by some sort of ray…
The taillight detail on this thing is absolutely incredible. The hood ornaments are so over-the-top. This car is just so garish, tacky, & ugly it’s beautiful.
The “Park Lane” script is by far my greatest attraction.
Speaking of… I really miss some of the fonts used on some of these old car emblems. Scripts like the “Dodge” on some of the A-vans, the backhand 1970-4 “Camaro”, the ’69-’76 “Cougar”, any old Imperial script, ’68 Impala, etc.
If you’d like to run down this rabbit hole with me, check out some of this site: http://chromeography.com/
Not ugly at all!Now a 58 Lincoln that definitely is ugly
Well, at least I got the year right in my Clue guess. Seriously, in this age of Smart cars and Nissan Leafs its hard to believe cars like these Mercs were built in my lifetime. I remember when the size, colors, trim did not seem too unusual. But frankly I was unaware that features like seat memory or Performance/Cruising transmission settings existed then. I can’t begin to think of the electro-mechanical (and probably vacuum) complexity!
Looking just at the taillights, I can only guess that FOMOCO’s Dearborn design team were heavily influenced by the imagery of Salvador Dali, who overstated the most minutest details to grab a viewer’s attention. Here, we’ve got taillights resembling exhaust ports of a spacecraft ready to blast across the newly poured surfaces of the U.S. Interstate Highway system. Whether it appeals to you or not, that ’58 is a really a “head turner” of a machine.
Also, I believe this car was the source of a National Lampoon satirical piece on “futuristic” magazine articles [Popular Mechanics, etc] which featured a fictional auto advertisement for a car called the “58 Bulgemobile.”
My back hurts just thinking about putting stuff in and out of the trunk!!!
The car is so “over the top” it’s beautiful! Love it!
I think a big part of the reason the ’57-’59 Mercurys didn’t do well is that Mercury tried to move upscale very quickly. For ’57, Mercury dropped both of its cheaper series, so the cheapest ’57 was a good $400 more than in ’56 — a lot of money when $3,000 would buy you a nicely equipped new Ford. Mercury rectified that in a hurry in ’58, but by then, the recession was setting in.
Agreed. The 1957 plan was interesting, in that there would be two separate Fords (116 and 118 inch wheelbases), with the larger one (the Fairlane/Fairlane 500) largely filling the slot of the 56 Mercury. The Edsel was to come in and plug the hole for good in 1958, so this is probably why the Park Lane hit that year, in order to finish Mercury’s move upstairs.
I have always wondered what might have happened if the new car (Edsel) had been positioned above Mercury, which was well known and perceived as a competitor to Dodge and Pontiac. Had the upper-level Edsel come out as the 1957 Mercury and had the 57-58 Mercury come out as the Edsel, maybe the gambit might have worked better.
Of course, we will never know since McNamara came to power and gutted the whole grand plan before it really had a chance to take root. I still think that such a plan might have started to bear fruit in 1962-63. Oh well.
In the long run, Ford was better off without another division. McNamara and Iacocca ultimately had a better idea – have Ford invade the medium-price market with more expensive models. The 1958 Thunderbird and 1965 LTD ultimately made even Mercury unnecessary.
The pressures of the 1960s model proliferation, increased government regulation and the rise of foreign competition would have turned Edsel into another rebadged Ford.
One rebadged Ford – Mercury – was already too much by the early 1980s. Even GM ultimately couldn’t sustain the old Sloan brand-ladder structure by the 1980s. Edsel, had it survived, would have simply been more baggage by the late 1970s.
The fictional ’58 Bulgemobile (as drawn by the great Bruce McCall) is supposed to be a parody of vehicles like this. Except that it’s not really that far fetched, is it?
Nice example of a car that is rarely seen even at auto shows. I do wish that the owner had resisted the urge to festoon it with the continental kit, fender skirts and spot lights. Very few people added those features to their cars in the 1950s. I like the car as it appears in the brochure much better.
The car is already over-the-top without those features. It doesn’t need any “help” in that area.
I could do without the spotlights and Continental kit too. It’s plenty unique without adding them!
I would beg to differ here. I saw a whole lot of continental kits when I was growing up (I was born in 1953), and a whole lot of add-on fender skirts just like the ones this car sports. Now, the spotlights seem like something that had worn out its welcome by 1958; my dad’s ’47 Cadillac and his ’41 Chevy both had spotlights (they didn’t work), but I never saw very many of them on ’50s cars.
My Uncle Charlie had a Montclair Turnpike Cruiser in red and white. Bought new in 1958, he had it up to around ’65. It was the flashiest car anyone in my family ever had.
Even Caddy’s took a back seat to the Merc.
My mate who has the 67 SST looked at a 57 Mercury we both knew from childhood apparently the only one here but he turned it down in favour of the much rarer Rambler coupe we both also first saw as kids
If you’re going to go over the top, why not clear the bar by a wide margin?
The real question is, what would you wear while driving it? I figure a pink argyle sweater with a pink sequin fedora.
Definately not my style but an interesting car for sure!
I feel guilty saying this, given how positive everyone’s response to this car’s styling is, but I really think it’s hideous. I’ve generally not liked cars from the mid-late ’50s and this car shows why. It’s so strange to me, given the conservative style of the era’s clothing and the progressive, clean look of the era’s architecture, that such cars were so commonplace. Granted, this Mercury is one of the more extreme incarnations of the era’s automotive style but nevertheless it seems like just one example of the many ugly cars from the fifties. Feel free to crucify for my statement.
you can say what you like about the 50s american cars with there fins and chrome one has only to look at sweden one of the biggest american car shows in the world to see the response ,I own a 1959 ford galaxie convertible and i have a 1958 mercury monteray on the way all i can say is there is sure gonna be some stiff necks when I’m cruising round
Now I know where George Lucas got his idea for the lightsaber .
+1!
I was wondering if anyone knows how the seat memory function and hill descent control worked. Since there were no computers in those cars I would imagine it was a fairly complicated system.
Here’s a detailed account of the Seat-O-Matic as fitted in a T-Bird. It’s clearly the same device. It wasn’t a computer, it was a multi-deck rotary switch controlling a relay.
https://www.ctci.org/gilsgarage/Dial-O-Matic.php
The Merc also had an automatic pushbutton chassis lubrication system, which had been common on luxury cars in the ’30s.
It always amazes me that these were cars for “just normal folks”! Were they putting LSD in the drinking water back then?
I think by 1958 there was starting to be a backlash against cars like this. Bruce McCall’s Bulgemobile was a modern parody, but the book “Insolent Chariots” published in 1958 by John Keats was a contemporary criticism of over-sized and over-sexed cars, and the industry that produced and marketed them. I think it’s no coincidence that VW was already selling in huge numbers in the US by then, and the Detroit compacts were on the horizon. Will there be a similar backlash against Nissan Cubes, Land Rover Epoqs, and Hyundai Velosters in the next few years?
Here’s an interesting analysis of contemporary reaction to 1950’s styling, at least from design professionals: http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Design/Gartman/D_Overview/D_Overview4.htm
I think the styling of everything changed radically after the 1950s. Contemporary furniture of the 1950s doesn’t look like contemporary furniture of the 1960s; the 1960s brought a sort of plain, rectilinear approach to design that really relies on faultless execution (fit, joinery, finish) for maximum effect. One sees it in the design of kitchen appliances, television sets, audio components, buildings, and automobiles. In the 1960s, the materials themselves had to be of the finest quality, fitted together exactly, to not look “cheap.” For instance, look at a Dual 1019 turntable to see German audio equipment craftsmanship at its peak (the 1219 and the 1229 also show these characteristics). Their operation is also butter-smooth. This look came to dominate audio components of the era, too–electronics and speakers. In architecture, the same thing applies, I think. There’s a building in San Diego’s Balboa Park that goes against the dominant faux Spanish-Colonial look. It’s the Timken Museum (it’s the Timken of Timken bearings). It’s a mid-60s art museum that uses the best 1960s materials, fitted together with great precision in spare mid-60s design. It’s quite beautiful, in a 1960s way.
One sees the 1960s at work all over Detroit’s products of that time. And I think that Bill Mitchell was almost prescient in designs for the 1961 GM cars; I think he saw what was coming down the pike, so to speak. And his cars only got better till about 1967, when the bloat became a bit more apparent.
I think cars of this era reflected the American experience of the 40s and 50s. Our fathers had saved the world in WW II. We had the world’s best military and thousands of thermonuclear warheads ready to strike for democracy. We held all the world’s speed records. Our science and engineering were second to none. Our movie theaters showed war movies and westerns that made you feel proud to be an American. America was the richest, kindest and most dangerous country on earth. We were like the top rooster in the barnyard and cars like this were our tail feathers.
There’s a ’58 Montclair near my work. Bright yellow, white and black. Quite the show stopper here in rural NZ! Somehow I missed this story Tom, so am a bit late to the party. But it’s an exceptionally good write-up, thank you!
Loved your article on the 1958 Park Lane – I think 1958 is my favorite all time year for cars — all brands included with the minor exception of the 1958 Chrysler – preferred the 1957 version. But otherwise, all 1958 brands, Ford, Edsel, Mercury, Linclon, Plymouth, Dodge, DeSoto, Chrysler (1957 was better), Imperial, Studebaker and Packard (love the new 2-door hardtop and the Hawks), Rambler/Rambler Ambassador, Chey, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, Cadillac, and and and.
One exception to your article is that you note that one could opiton power windows, power seats,……etc. on a 1958 Mercury. You included Cruise Control in that list, and actually, Ford was a little behind on cruise control – it didn’t offer this feature on Mercury until the 1963 model. Actually Imperial led with Cruise Control (they called it ‘Auto-Pilot’) in 1958.
Thanks and regards.
I had a ’58 Parklane 4dr ht my Sr yr of HS and So yr of Jr. College, but while attending my 4 yr college dad had the car crushed. I truly loved that car. I now have a ’58 2dr sedan Monterey, that I have restored and take to local shows and drive as much as I can, and I enjoy all the comments I get about the car. When I go back to the home area I get asked if it is the same car as I had in HS, but I have to tell them no. I attended the IMOA Nationals in Branson, Mo. a couple years ago and was the only ’58 Mercury there. I, of course, drove it all the way as I believe that’s what they are made for. My tag reads ‘1st love’ as I relive the good old days tooling down the road—great article, I enjoy reading about the big “M’s”
Aft of the front door, the 1958 Park Lane, compared to the other Mercury models that year, was a completely different car, with a rear deck extended eight inches (similar to the Buick Limited), different roof and back door, and different trunk lid and backlight. The rear “projectile” coves were taller and much larger in cross-section than on lesser Mercurys — in this respect, the rear end was basically a preview of the 1959 cars. The “ray gun” outrigger running lights were also unique to the Park Lane.
Looks great — a 58 Parklane Convertible !
We have a 58 Mercury Monterey 4 Door Pillarless Phateon, in Twighlight Turquoise and a marble white strip, it has the rare 383cuin motor, two tone interior. We bought it with its original bill of sale Whom the original owner was Mrs Alva J Turnbull, Portland, Oregon, She traded in her 54 Hudson for it. It has push button “Merc O Matic ” Auto transmission. its still under 49 thousand miles and still all original apart from its new wheels and a new set of full width whitewalls and a lovely set of chrome 61 Dodge Polara hubcaps which match the fender mirrors having the pionted spikes on them both. Looks fantastic fom every angle and we love it. We have still the original hubcaps in storage. “Trump” now lives with us in England UK, but only gets used in good weather, which is very little. Matt And Clare. PS It was ordered with a “Projectile Applique” at $10.80 and cant find another 58 with one of these fitted from special order… looks great though.
I love late ’50s Mercurys, but I find this to be gaudy and overdone. The loud mauve (Is that an original color?), the tacked-on rear spare and bumper extension, the oversize wheel skirts–why do owners of these cars feel they have to goop them up with all these tacky add-ons?
The cars in the brochure pictures look clean and sharp without all the superfluous doo-dads–but I seldom see them at shows that way.
The car below was parked in Summit NJ for many years. Then one day it mysteriously vanished. I always wondered what happened to it. I’d rather drive around in this white 2-door in restored condition than that convertible, even if the conv. is worth more.
Front view:
The 1958 upper model full sized Mercury’s along with the Lincoln’s of the same year were among my favorite vehicles built that year, wasn’t the Mercury Park Lane the second most powerful U.S. vehicle built after the Lincoln’s of the same year? I’ve always felt the 1958 Mercury’s/Lincoln’s were some of the most underrated vehicles every built.
I like the look of the ’58 more than the ’57 – the later front end looks more unified. Interesting enough, I looked at the ’58 promo material at http://www.oldcarbrochures.org and there’s no mention of a Medalist anywhere. It must have been a last-minute addition, which seems a bit of a dumb move since the Edsel was coming out at the same time.
The drop in sales in 1957 literally killed one of the progenitors of Mercury…
https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2018/08/24/mercurys-xm-turnpike-cruiser-unearthed-headed-into-restoration/#&gid=1&pid=1
“Still, the drop in sales reflected poorly on Reith. The Farrells wrote that Ford removed him from the head of the Mercury Division and offered instead to install him as the head of Ford of Canada, but he “was too proud to take it” and instead resigned. He later ran AVCO’s Crosley division before committing suicide in July 1960. Ford folded Mercury into the new Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln division in 1958. The XM-Turnpike Cruiser “as Reith’s car… became an outcast,” the Farrells wrote.”
And people thought the ’58 Buick was overdecorated! Mercury drifted in and out of having its own distinctive identity for decades. By the ’70s most Mercurys were just tarted up Fords (Comet and Bobcat anyone?) but I always felt the full-size Marquis models from 1973-78 were pretty distinctive and I could easily recognize them coming down the road while walking to school. They were much nicer than the plain Ford LTDs but not quite a Lincoln Town Car.
Yeah, these late-50s examples are gaudy, but a sign of their times (given the market guessing-planning that had to take so many months ahead of time). Nice to see them given their CC moment.
I see there was a price-leader “Medalist” for 1956, then dropped for 1957. This is Popular Mechanics in Feb. 1958, noting the “Big Switch” to economy, suggesting a ’58 Medalist might appear, and noting how Edsel fit into all this:
Hey, that’s Dahl Ford, Davenport! I also live in the QC.
I just quickly scanned the stats for Ford and Mercury in The Encyclopedia of American Cars. The Medalist appears for the 1st time in 1956 yet even though it was the LEAST expensive Mercury it cost nearly as much as the MOST expensive Ford.
IOW, at that point there was almost no price overlap between the two brands. The Medalist in 56 cost almost 50% more than the Ford Custom.
Real bumpers, your neighbor had a dead battery, no problem Joe, I’ll push you down the street, pop the clutch. And many early auto transmissions had a rear oil pump so the turning driveshaft would allow 25-30 MPH push start. Even the owners manual would point this out.
In the ’60’s people complained about the thin and useless bumpers that were provided at the time, so in the ’70’s the government gave us 5 MPH railroad ties. But automatics now were unable to push start anymore, and standard transmissions were less common.
In the ’80’s fuel consumption and insurance repair costs changed the bumper requirements to 2.5 MPH, so now we have hollow plastic and Styrofoam painted “bumpers” that scratch with the lightest little tap.
I don’t think real bumpers will ever be making a comeback.
1958 was a year of poor styling for many American cars, and Mercury seemed to be right behind Edsel in the looks department. This convertible is a beauty, it would cost a fortune to build a car exactly like this today, not using any modern materials.
The article says, “Well, in 1959 the Mercury was extensively redesigned and looked like an all-new car.” Actually, it was the 1960 Mercury that was extensively redesigned.
This is a 1959 Mercury.
And here’s a 1960 Mercury.
The flamboyant styling was just a reflection of the times, after two decades of first economic depression then wartime sacrifice followed by an uneasy Cold War which was settling into an accepted reality, the country felt it had won the right to go a little nuts in celebration of its survival and triumph. It was the pleasant insanity of innocent excess.
The concept of a two body program spread over four or five nameplates was employed by Chrysler then, it could have worked as well for Ford, but they botched it. An F-M body for Ford and Mercury, a larger E-L for the Edsel and Lincoln, had this been instituted in early ’50’s and given enough support and commitment could have put FoMoCo in a stronger competitive position a decade later. Instead, it had to rely on Ford model proliferation to make up for the weak Lincoln-Mercury Division. And lick their wounds over the Edsel failure.
Truly, this ’58 Mercury Park Lane is the last gasp of postwar exuberance in America. If Harley Earl had an acolyte at Ford, he must have designed this car. As the sixties dawned, Cadillac tail fins faded into the sunset, continental kits disappeared, and compacts roamed American highways. Although I didn’t care much for this car when it was new (I was ten years old), it brings feelings of nostalgia for when the U.S. was literally on top of the world, as well as the envy of people around the world. Bill Mitchell, Gene Bordinat, Chuck Jordan and Elwood Engel brought us clean-lined cars like the ’61 Continental, ’63 and ’66 Rivieras, and the ’65 Chrysler. The ’50s, high-point of Alfred P. Sloan’s “car for every pocket” and planned obsolescence, gave way to the longer model cycle and the proliferation of vehicle choices seen today. Having said all that, what would cruise-ins be like today if the ’50s had never happened?
I am fond of the 1958-1960 Lincoln Continentals but not these Mercurys. I find the styling clumsy and way over the top. Maybe the styling studio head announced that there was a contest to see who would come up with the most tacked on doodas. It didn’t matter if it enhanced the looks or not. The 1958 Buick and Oldsmobile, which are also hideous, have a more cohesive look than the contemporary Mercs.
I wonder how much it would cost to restore all the chrome in these cars.
While not fond of the styling my thanks to the author for a well written article on a car that doesn’t get much attention.
I have a 57 Monarch with the memory seat and power steering and brakes but without the fender shirts and contonental kit. I wouldn’t be able to fit it in the garage with the continental kit.
Hi I live in Norway N. And have a 1958 Mercury Parklane 430 cub.
Wondering where I can buy parts for it, taillight glass (clear glass behind) and manual joystick box etc.
Best regards Roy Olsen
Norway N.
Hi I live in Norway N. And have a 1958 Mercury Parklane 430 cub.
Wondering where I can buy parts for it, taillight glass (clear glass behind) and manual joystick box etc.
Best regards Roy Olsen
Norway N.