image posted at the Cohort by wainohg
(first posted 9/28/2015) Looking at this alternate-reality Edsel Skyliner, the only thought I have is: The Skyliner should have been an Edsel. And only an Edsel.
What the hell was Ford doing, always undercutting its mid-premium brands (Edsel, Mercury) with expensive and unique cars like the Thunderbird and Skyliner? Ford clearly seems to have lacked a certain conviction in their mid-premium brands by doing so.
The Skyliner would have fit in perfectly with Edsel’s image of being new and different, with its steering-wheel hub automatic transmission push buttons and other late 50s space-age doo-dads. Edsel needed a halo car, and the Skyliner would have been perfect for the job.
And a halo car should have its halo be able to float above it, right?
More on the Ford Skyliner: My CC on a the 1957 version.
Love it and the Eco-Boost Edsel featured on CC. The Edsel wagon taillights are a perfect finish. Nice work.
Seeing this car, I can’t help wondering whether all ’58 Edsels should have had this rear end.
I have to wonder if this started out as this car. Literally, I shot this at an Edsel meet years ago. It seems like I remember someone talking about making it into one. Someone from Oregon had another one at the same meet. White with gold top.
Well, you certainly wouldn’t want to add the Skyliner parts to an existing Edsel, so the featured car probablly started out with Ford sheet metal. That makes your theory quite plausible.
Fabulous! It just now strikes me – the problem with giving all of the good stuff to Lincoln, Mercury and Edsel was that HFII’s name wasn’t on the fenders of those cars. I wonder if things might have been different if in the great brand shuffle, Mercury and Edsel had been given the cheap fleet and basic stuff and Ford had been made a premium or near premium brand. As it was, giving the Ford line maximum sales was what it was all about, no matter what product it took to do it.
That approach probably wouldn’t have worked in the late 50s, but that is sort of what ended up happening all these years later.
+1. I’m sure the ego of the family name is why Ford has always struggled with its other brands’ identity.
‘…..Mercury and Edsel had been given the cheap fleet and basic stuff and Ford had been made a premium or near premium brand.’
That would really have given GM a fit! What would they do with Chevrolet…..? 🙂
The British Ford Popular, a 1937 car you could buy brand-new until 1959, could’ve had an Edsel “horsecollar” grille with only a small tweak.
Reminds me of a guy here in Australia back in the sixties who built a hot rod with an Edsel grille in a ’32 Ford grille shell, IIRC it was held in place with a lot of thin horizontal bars. Supposedly it was fitted as a joke, but that’s a lot of work for a joke.
Nice pic of a Popular here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8240655/Mystery-1950s-Ford-Popular-unearthed-garden-solved.html
People forget that automobile grills were literally ALL vertical until the late 40’s. Edsel was just the first to try to reintroduce it and that choice, the fact that it was an unneeded 4th nameplate, along with a recession in 1958 sealed it’s fate.
The strange proportions the skyliner required seem to work better with the Edsel’s details as well. This is a very nicely executed car, easily could have fooled me.
Just what I was thinking.
+1
Trouble is, the alternate universe would need to have McNamara working somewhere else. He sabotaged the Edsel from the start because it would take profit away from his Ford Division.
Most of the troubles of GM and Ford arose from being so fat and rich that they could afford corporate nonsense. Infighting, sabotage, union waste, dumb ideas that satisfied executive ego but couldn’t possibly be profitable.
AMC couldn’t afford such nonsense and KNEW IT, so it stayed frugal and spent money only on cars that would sell. Until Meyers came along, bringing corporate nonsense and failure.
Chrysler couldn’t afford such nonsense and DIDN’T KNOW IT, so it required frequent bailouts before bailouts were cool.
“Chrysler couldn’t afford such nonsense and DIDN’T KNOW IT, so it required frequent bailouts before bailouts were cool.”
This made me laugh and spit out my coffee. Now my coworkers are staring at me. THANKS A LOT 😉
http://bringatrailer.com/2015/09/25/edsel-converted-1957-ford-fairlane-skyliner/
I thought those pictures looked familiar. Can ebay/BaT ads be considered sightings?
No. They should be original finds. Too late now.
Here are some photos of the featured car I took a few years ago.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=91462077%40N00&view_all=1&text=edsel%20pacer
It’s gained an Edsel dashboard since you took the pics. Different registration number too, so I guess it’s been a lengthy work in progress!
It would have made more sense as an Edsel, I also thought the 4 seat Thunderbird should have been an Edsel or Mercury. The Riviera help early 1960s Buick, and I think having a unique model or two would have given Edsel a proper kickstart.
Problem is that the Thunderbird went into production in 1955. However, it probably should have been either a Lincoln or Mercury. I am not sure how a Mercury Thunderbird would have gone over though, but then the name probably might have been different if it had been part of Lincoln/Mercury instead of Ford.
Edsel probably was doomed, even without McNamara’s influence. If they had moved Mercury down market a bit or left it where it was in 1957 with a 122 inch wheel base and prices under $3000 (for the most part). Then the upper end of the Edsel line on a 124 inch wheelbase with prices around $3000 and up would have made sense. The new for 58 Mercury Park Lane could have been an Edsel on a 127 inch wheel base making it the high end Edsel. This would have made Edsel clearly between Mercury and Lincoln. As it was, Edsel seemed to be somewhere in the middle of Mercury or maybe a Ford, depending on which models you were interested in.
Ironically, the original E-Car concept was to create an upper-medium priced nameplate to fill $1,000 price gap between the costliest Mercury and the base Lincoln. Market research had discovered that while the GM and Chrysler price/make stepped structure worked quite well to trade up their customers, Mercury buyers looking to move up went to the competition for their next further upmarket car.
The concept was to do just as SomeOneInTheWildWest had outlined i.e. where Mercury pricing ended, the new E-Car would begin, pick up those increasing-affluent customers wanting more car and prestige but not yet ready or able to available themselves of the ultimate luxury motor car…..now designed for Modern Living: Lincoln!
I don’t know how the prices worked out, but of course the top two Edsel lines were based on the Mercury body, and the bottom two were based on the Ford body. This would seem to indicate that the Edsel was between Ford and Mercury, contrary to the initial plan. Putting a car above rather than below Mercury would have made sense.
The base Edsel Ranger was $2300 to $2400, the Pacer $2500 up, both on the Ford wheelbase of 118 inches. The Ford Fairlane with V8 was $2200 up. The Edsel body was a bit longer.
The upper end Edsel on a 124 inch wheelbase was over $3000, with the Citation convertible $3500. Mercury’s on the 122 inch wheelbase start at $2400 to 2500 (Monterey), with the Montclair running $3000 to $3250. The (new) Parklane was on a 125 inch wheelbase and priced over $3500. Edsel bodies are longer than the Mercuries (except Parklane).
Lincoln prices start at about $4500.
So the high end of Edsel was in the middle of Mercury. The base Edsel was a bigger body than the Ford Fairlane 500 and priced about the same depending on models. The 1957 Mercury’s were mostly below $3000, and no Park Lane. What might have made more sense would have been to keep Mercury below $3000 and to start Edsel at $3000, with the upper models above $3500.
One needs to understand that Mercury was well established at its price point. Moving it up would be difficult. However, Edsel, as a new make, can be priced anywhere provided that there is real value at the price. Currently Cadillac is having trouble selling CTS’s at a new, higher price. The CTS was established as the low end Cadillac in the 3-series price range. Now the ATS is the 3-series, and the CTS has moved up to 5-series class, but customers are not ready to pay 5 series prices.
I think Edsel customers had some expectations about what the Edsel would be and reality was somewhat different.
“Tis ‘n taint’, Jolo” …
1. Attractive as the conversion is, an Edsel Pacer would have required prior year Ford 1/4 panels, forsaking the gullwing rear end appearance of the brand-leader coupe and sedan. (Or tool the quarters and closeout, plus all the other bits, extra cost on top of extra cost…)
2. Not having the retractable on the Mercury-based Citation/Corsair would be an even bigger faux pas.
3. The Pacer would have to go into Dearborn Assembly Plant, where it would have been a massive headache to manage for such a low volume. There was a dedicated plant for Edsel in Allen Park across the street (ex-Continental Division), but they didn’t have the floor space to throw a retractable into the mix.
4. McNamara hated the Edsel from the start and did his best to kill it in the cradle. One may only imagine his schadenfreude at seeing the whole thing blow up, as his signature 4-seat Thunderbird, Galaxie 500 HT and 1960 Falcon hit the street to surprising success. Not sure if his bio books explore this era in McNamara’s life, but I’d bet you a drink at the Ten Eyck Bar that HF2 was something less than delighted at a.) getting sold up the river on Edsel and b.) knowing McNamara was actively sabotaging the Edsel brand.
I don’t know, the bolt on Wagon taillights as executed I think is a pretty reasonable compromise.
I was thinking the boomerang taillights were wagon only. They really make this car for me.
The 1959 Edsel Skyliner might have been problematical from the rear though.
Take a look at a convertible, the 1959 wagon’s tail lights are quite narrow due to the tailgate. I think that for both years, Edsel would have been a better looking retractable top with the long, horizontal lights.
Well if it had been intended from the start as an Edsel exclusive product or a Edsel and Mercury they could have done that with the top of the line Edsel and Mercury body shell.
I do agree that it would have made more sense as an Edsel feature to highlight that it was an upscale product and “an entirely new car”.
The Thunderbird on the other hand needed to be a Ford to compete with the Corvette in the begining and when they took it another direction it was a good idea to keep the name that had good recognition and of course keep it as a Ford.
However they certainly did seem to be competing with themselves too much or at least hamstringing their upper brands with the Fairlane, Retractable and 4 seat Bird.
Edsel fan here. Roy Brown (Edsel designer, not foul mouthed comedian Roy ” Chubby” Brown) and some of his team were banished to Dagenham after the Edsel disaster.There were certainly a lot worse looking(and much more expensive) American cars around in 1958. The ostentatious GM cars,especially the Oldsmobile and Buick, the strange looking Imperial and worst of them all the monstrous Lincoln which the Edsel actually outsold.
Aw c’mon. The 1958 Imperial was an awesome far out of the box design. And the 1958 Lincoln? Not monstrous, but maximum amount of awesomeness.
And this.
It’s the headlights that spoil it, I always thought something was missing around the lower area. I much prefer the 55/56 Imperials
Now that you mention it the headlight nacelles should have been squared up a bit at the top corners to fit the body surrounds. Still awesome in a different way than the 55-56’s. From something here (?) recently (2021) I discovered that the 1955 Imperial is the coolest of that version because it has full rear wheel openings.
Saw this car at a car show in foxboro, ma, knew something was fishy when I noticed where the fuel filler was.
I like it ! .
-Nate
What Nate said. I don’t hate this!
I like it too, especially that fabulous red & white paint job. It just looks “right” as an Edsel.
The rational for the retractable hardtop technology being transferred from the Continental Division to the Ford Division for further development and production-ization was the latter had a better chance of selling enough cars to recoup it’s costs and produce a unit profit. McN was against the Edsel from the get-go, even though it would have benefitted it to have such a halo model. For that matter, the upper series Citation and its M-E body-sharing Mercury Montclair should have had such premium models. The really wild version would be a Turnpike Cruiser retractable hardtop!
I like this version, but it needs an Edsel emblem on that blank panel above the license plate light.
The idea that Mercury should have gotten the retractable top body style instead of Ford fits in with my idea that Ford, as the “bread and butter” brand…..should have passed off “specialized models/body styles” to Mercury. Unfortunately, the marketing of Ford and especially Mercury, was a history of back and forth decisions. Edsel’s creation showed how flawed and disorganized the marketing decisions underpinning ALL of FoMoCo are (were?).
Lots of visible bondo and rust in that Edsel I hope it gets fixed properly next time, Cool roof though I do like Skyliners though they are very rare around here,
Love it, all it needs is a Continental Kit.
Noooo, and no chrome wire wheels either.
To me, the name “Edsel” has always had a funny ring to it. There was a guy in Brooklyn, NY many years ago. He had a `58 Edsel Ranger and his name was Ed. He nicknamed his car “Ed`s Hell”, and had it painted on the trunk lid.
Here is a picture of the Oregon version. The only telltale is the original upper fin line.
That’s the one I took pictures of at the edsel meet here in Boise. I remember those fins and thinking they looked kind of out of place on that car. Not that I believed Ford had ever produced one of these. Knowing full well it had been a Ford Retract with Edsel sheet metal. But, still wondering why they left the fins on it.
It seems recently I’ve seen a dark blue one for sale and a green 59 for sale on Ebay.
Is This Edsel Retractable For Sale?
Makes complete sense.
Probably why it wasn’t done.
Spend hundreds of millions of 1958 dollars, and you just might find yourself with a prince among the new toads. The prince was the 4-seater T-Bird, and the Galaxie, while the toads were Big M Mercurys, the Edsel division, the Continental division, the ginormous Lincolns, and a 40% market drop.
Thank Henry for the Falcon. Ford repeatedly try to create divisions above Ford, and repeatedly discovers that it is a waste of precious money.
Being sold via Hemmings in early 2015—has some nice background on condition and modifications from the then-current seller:
https://www.hemmings.com/stories/2015/03/03/hemmings-find-of-the-day-1957-ford-skyliner
Meanwhile, I really, really admire this build, and I might want to call it “whimsical” (admiringly), but I’d never call it “goofy.”
Paul, I like your thesis about making Edsel distinctive, etc.
A nicely done conversion that got $82 at Sotheby’s, 2018—wow:
https://rmsothebys.com/en/auctions/AF18/Auburn-Fall/lots/r0079-1959-edsel-corsair-skycruiser-retractable-hardtop/692979
Looks nice and Im not an Edsel fan but that works,
What was the thinking behind that horse collar grill and the name, Edsel, really, was Albert not available? Never was a fan of McNamara but he did have one thing right, waste of money.
> What the hell was Ford doing, always undercutting its mid-premium brands (Edsel, Mercury) with expensive and unique cars like the Thunderbird and Skyliner? Ford clearly seems to have lacked a certain conviction in their mid-premium brands by doing so.
Ford did lack conviction, because Mercury (and obviously Edsel) were never all that strong, certainly not compared to GM’s Pontiac/Olds/Buick dominance of the midrange. But in retrospect, Ford was doing it right by expanding Ford upward with the T-bird and Skyliner. Eventually they’d move their mainstream cars upward with the LTD and later the Granada, both which prompted quick responses from Chevrolet who was forced to offer upmarket competition like the Caprice. This was brilliant marketing by Ford, because those upscale Chevys were the beginning of the end for Pontiac and Oldsmobile.
It’s become apparent since then that you really only need two brands to cover the vast majority of the market – a mainstream brand and a luxury brand. Think Toyota/Lexus, VW/Audi, or, well, Ford/Lincoln. If you want to compete in the ultraluxury (Rolls, Bentley) or supercar (Ferrari, Lambo, McLaren) segments you’ll need another brand but those are low-volume, as are niche brands like Mini. But Ford (and Chrysler) in the 1950s couldn’t take their eye off GM and their five divisions and think “that’s how it’s done!” and try to duplicate that structure with their own Sloan-ladder brands. But over time, Ford’s better idea of simply expanding Ford upscale was the better approach. GM still has a mid-market brand (Buick and GMC sold from the same dealerships) but this is really a legacy thing; I doubt if Buick/GMC didn’t already exist that GM would see the need to create it. The mid-market would be better covered by additional upscale trim levels on Chevys and maybe some entry-level Cadillacs. After all, I don’t know of anyone who thinks Toyota really needs something between Toyota and Lexus.
This was brilliant marketing by Ford, because those upscale Chevys were the beginning of the end for Pontiac and Oldsmobile.
Certainly not for Olds, which went on to dominate the best seller list with its massively popular Cutlass Supreme for a number of years well after the Caprice was born.
I agree with you in principle about not needing mid-premium brands, but that’s from the vantage point of hindsight. In the 1950s through the 80s (at least) GM’s mid-premium brands were on average very successful. There was a time one could argue that GM should kill Chevrolet, except for their trucks.
The point is that in the 50s, if Ford was serious about competing in this segment, it needed to be more committed, especially with Edsel offering something unique other than just wondow dressing on existing Mercurys and Fords.
But yes, it’s certainly a moot point, and obviously Ford and Chrysler were somewhat doomed in this category.
The Thunderbird is a special case, because it started out as a two-seater in response to the Corvette. It only morphed into an upscale four seat mid-luxury car some years later, by which time it was too late to change the brand.
The four-seat Thunderbird was the one Ford that Chevrolet didn’t feel a need to compete with in the ’60s. Actually, after a decade of trying to catch the Falcon, Econoline, Fairlane, Mustang, and LTD, the tables were reversed when the Monte Carlo became a hit and Ford lamely responded with the (Gran Torino) Elite before turning it into the ’77 Thunderbird for a much stronger competitor. Those who wanted something bigger and fancier like the 72-76 T-birds could buy a Lincoln Mark V.
As for Olds, I worded my comment carefully regarding the upscale Chevys being the *beginning* of the end for Olds – obviously it wasn’t the immediate end as the Cutlass was huge in the ’70s and early ’80s and the larger sedans sold well too. But ultimately there just wasn’t enough room for Oldsmobile to squeeze into the GM lineup once Chevy was forced to invade their turf.
Also:
here was a time one could argue that GM should kill Chevrolet, except for their trucks.
That’s almost what they’ve actually done.
Thing is Chevrolet(a low price brand) is around and Pontiac or Olds (mid price brands) isn’t but on the flipside Dodge(a mid priced brand) is around and Plymouth (a low price brand) isn’t. It was Ford and Chevy(and all cars today) effectively becoming midprice brands themselves that drove out the mid priced brands, but Plymouth stayed steadily low priced and the mid priced brands ultimately prevailed. Midprice type cars were exactly where the market headed, low price/low content disappeared.
The brands you don’t see anymore weren’t casualties of the decline of the midprice segment but casualties of a decision of what name is more marketable right now, it’s not even legacy. GM had a slew of brands with real legacy, Cadillac, Oldsmobile, Buick and Chevrolet were all individual companies from the old days of the automobile, but when time came to cull the herd all that really mattered was what Company was selling best at the time the corporation decided to pull the plug. If it happened in the late 70s Oldsmobile would still be with us and Chevrolet would be gone. Ford is probably the only American automotive brand name that is truly sacrosanct.