And here is the holy grail of the Forward Look. No other car of the Virgil Exner juggernaut had so much riding on its success. Few other cars of the 1950s captured the zeitgeist of the cultural moment as well as these befinned bargains. The heaven and hell of these majestic mysteries is just a click away.
Plymouth had made a remarkable leap away from staidness in the 1955 model year. Even in that heady year of record production for almost everyone, the 1955 Plymouth got lost in the shuffle, actually finishing behind Buick, which had enjoyed a smashing year. A very healthy number of Specials, priced barely beyond the fanciest Belvedere, helped Buick sweep to third place behind Ford and Chevrolet.
For a variety of reasons, Buick’s time in the bronze spot would be limited. Ironically, build quality–which would come back to haunt the whole swath of the second wave of the Forward Look—stifled Buick sales by 1957. That left plenty of room for a mesmerizing new Plymouth to reclaim its crown as the third-most popular car in the land.
In the long run, this new Plymouth’s fan base had all the longevity of, say, Fabian’s, Frankie Lymon’s or Frankie Avalon’s, especially compared with that of the tri-five’s Elvis-like devotees. But in the late summer and fall of 1956, did it ever make an influential splash, along with all the other new Chrysler products.
Although the Forward Look quickly became dated, it spurred an entirely new design language. It gave us the swinging sixties look that (to me, at least), represented the last time American style ruled the roost. Had it not been for the mutiny these cars inspired at General Motors, the 1959 GM line would have looked a lot like the ’58s, and there might have been no 1961 Continental in response to the excesses of finned madness–and perhaps Bill Mitchell wouldn’t have brought his crisp creases to us until a few years later.
At the end of the day, the 1957 Plymouth remains one of the most breathtaking popularly-priced cars of all time. It made the 1955 Chevrolet look staid, and its remarkably understated elegance would make the reactive 1959 Chevrolet seem like a weird parody. Its surface detailing is quite simple for such a wildly shark-finned car: There’s not much chrome, and the stance is one of lithe athleticism rather than outright aggression. In fact, those abruptly rising “Shark Fin” tail fins are pretty much its only concession to frivolity, given the rather elegant, dart-like shapes of its Dodge, DeSoto, Chrysler and Imperial cousins.
As is well known, the beauty of the 1957 Mopar line wasn’t merely skin deep. This was the first full year for two legendary Chrysler hallmarks, Torsion-Aire Ride and the Torqueflite automatic. Though open for debate, the relative tautness of the Torsion-Aire ride provided handling that was light years ahead of both Ford’s flaccid and floating “Boulevard” ride and Chevrolet’s general indifference to change of direction.
And as for Torqueflite, it would soon become the standard for all automatic transmissions. In 1957, the only outdated mechanicals on Plymouths and Dodges involved the base engine, a Depression-era flathead inline six. It was durable and had competitive horsepower ratings, but still as dull as Wonder bread, especially considering the technological sophistication of the rest of the car.
In a decade of heartbreaking downfalls, the “Forward Fiasco” of 1957 is decidedly in the top three, along with the death of Packard and the Starliner saga at Studebaker. Rushed to market a year earlier than originally planned, the Chrysler Corporation’s 1957 cars–from the cheapest Plaza Sedan to the most imperial of Imperial Crown Southamptons–could be expected to leak, rust, snap torsion bars and split fabric seams. Haste makes waste.
Some say that was no worse than the quality, or lack thereof, of the indifferent years at Ford or Buick or a legion of other offenders, but one critical detail proved almost fatal to Chrysler: The shabby workmanship applied to all Forward Look cars regardless of sticker price.
It might have hurt less if the quality issues plagued only Plymouth, but their disruption of DeSoto’s legendary solidarity and Chrysler’s affluent image helped to create the perfect storm to overturn all forward (-look) progress. Plenty of people who’d married a 1957 Belvedere divorced it soon after and never again considered another Chrysler product, having been burned by so many things that went wrong.
The desperate attempts to right the ship involved Jerry-rigged solutions to the most egregious problems: hoses to channel the leaks outside, instead of into the cabin and onto your feet and hands. Torsion bar end caps to prevent moisture and discourage binding. Thicker upholstery. The fix list went on and on, but it was too late. Mopar never regained its former reputation for quality, despite the occasional high point with a specific model like the Chrysler New Yorker. After 55 years, quality issues continue to plague the perception (and sometimes reflect the reality) of today’s Chrysler products.
Although it was almost over as quickly as it started, the awe-inspiring impact of the ’57 Plymouths changed things, for better and for worse, on many different levels. Few other cars that I’ve caught with a camera have inspired so much joy. For all their initial popularity, their life-shortening woes have made 1957 Plymouths almost the holy grail of car spotting. This perfectly restored Belvedere, down to its gold mylar door panels, is probably far better built by the Oakland architect that restored it than it ever was when it left the factory in 1957.
It’s a bit like biting into the apple of knowledge: seeing a car this beautiful, but in full knowledge of its flaws, makes me so sad. There’ll never be cars like these again, for many legitimate and good reasons. I think that makes the world a sadder place where it is rare to find such artistic license and creative engineering in consumer products. Thank you, 1957 Plymouth, for you are truly one of a kind.
My paternal grandfather was a diehard Mopar man. When he passed away in 1962, he owned a 57 Dodge (Royal, Coronet?) with 8K on the clock, a beautiful white and green two tone which never saw snow or work commute. It passed on to my maiden aunt. My Dad was not really close to his family, so I didn’t see the car again till sometime in 1966 when a chance meeting took place.
The car was all rusted out, and in a very dilapidated condition. Four years destroyed that car. The car was living proof of the poor quality of Chrysler of 1957.
Fast forward to my new 76 Royal Monaco. All in all, a nice car. But I remember numerous flaws from the factory. The right rear fender had bumps and waves, looking like it had been poorly welded. The sun visors had air bubbles in the covering. The dealer replaced them after much arguement. The manager said that was within normal limits. The car always was a staller until warmed up. Numerous trips to the dealer did not fix the matter. The A/C did not work much longer than the 12 month warranty. A few weeks after purchase, the car wouldn’t start due to a bad voltage regulator. The dash board rattled when the radio was played. Manager laughed about it.
Last but not least, after a visit for the stalling issue, I drove the car home. After lifting the paper carpet protector, a big glob of black grease was present on the new carpet. I cleaned the carpet, resulting in minor damage in the weave.
Amazingly, I still have the car. In retrospect, I think I didn’t drive it much due to the aggravation factor when it was new. But it’s become an old friend in 36 years.
Wow. A rare and beautiful find, Laurence, and a great writeup to go with it.
I have to admit that the Plymouth was my least fave of the 1957 Forward Look cars, mostly because of those fins. The others had those long, tapered fins, but the Plymouth with that semi-blunt kickup at the back never looked as good to me as the car could have. However, these set the proportion for a modern car for a generation. The relationship of lenth, width and height of these cars stayed with us for the next 20 to 30 years.
You were right – this was the year that Chrysler’s longtime reputation for top-quality cars came crashing to the ground, never, ever to be revived. Just how does a company celebrate 55 almost continuous years of bad quality? I wonder. The fanboy in me still hopes that someday Chrysler will build something with both high initial quality and deep down durability – at the same time. They have had one or the other, but never both, it seems, since 1957.
I must also salute the owner who chose to restore his car – and paint it green. Everybody seems to want cars that are red, white and black. A green one (that is not a survivor sedan) is really, really rare. A couple of days ago I caught a beautiful 1960 Cadillac convertible on the road (no picture, sadly) painted a light metallic green. I don’t think I have ever seen one in that color, ever.
One other note – in addition to the Torqueflite, you could still get a Plymouth with the 2 speed Powerflite automatic. I don’t imagine that the take rate was very high, as a real skinflint could still chose the manual. I think that the Powerflite went away after, maybe, 1961.
Here’s a nice salmon pink Belvedere from the movie “Far From Heaven” (IMCDB).
I think Plymouth lost its 3rd place a bit earlier, in 1954 during the Ford-Chevy sales war and Buick got a fresh design with the wraparound windshield while the 1953-54 Plymouth design didn’t help and K.T Keller probably said “I’ve seen the errors of my own way”. We could wonder what if Plymouth got a V8 a year earlier and/or was redesigned with the “100 millions dollars look” earlier if things could had been different?
You’re right – Buick claimed third place for 1954, and Oldsmobile claimed fourth. Plymouth fell to fifth place that year. It was able to knock Oldsmobile back to fifth place for 1955, but Buick held on to the coveted third-place spot until 1957.
One factor that cannot be overlooked is the “Ford Blitz,” which began in late 1953 and hurt Plymouth and all of Chrysler Corporation. Henry Ford II wanted Ford Division to oust Chevrolet from the number-one spot, so he began shipping cars to dealers regardless of whether they had ordered them. Once GM management figured out what was happening, Chevrolet responded in kind. Dealers were told to sell the cars in any way possible (the result was a federal investigation of dealer-factory relations, and state franchise laws that were tilted in the favor of dealers).
Chrysler Corporation was handicapped by its dealer agreements, which called for it to only ship cars to dealers after they had ordered them. Between the Ford and Chevrolet sales war, and the dowdy styling, Chrysler products were tough to sell, so dealers simply stopped ordering them. Sales plunged for 1954 (Chrysler’s market share dropped to 13 percent, far below its customary 18-20 percent.) The Ford-Chevrolet sales war seriously hurt Chrysler and was the final blow to the independents.
Heartbreaking. Thanks, Laurence.
My grandparents had a new ’57 Dodge to replace an anvil-like ’50 DeSoto, which had replaced a similarly rugged ’36 Dodge. When the ’57 was barely a few months old, both torsion bars snapped as it sat in the damn driveway. Apparently it sounded like gunshots!
Regarding hit-or-miss quality, it came directly from top management. You get the sense that with every revamp, the Mopar product team got one of two orders:
1965 C-bodies: “Make it awesome.”
1969 fuselage C-bodies: “Make it cheaper.”
By the mid-’70s the team itself seemed to have been hollowed out. Postwar American management textbook theory at its finest. Sell the perceived value while liquidating the actual value.
Same comment I made for the Lumina:
For of all sad words of tongue or pen, The saddest are these: “It might have been!” – John Greenleaf Whittier
Just think what Chrysler could have done with their vast resources of engineering and manufacturing talent, plants, suppliers, etc., etc., etc. if they had made up their mind to do something superb.
You are right – absolutely maddening. In 1955-56-57, Chrysler was at the absolute peak of being an engineering powerhouse. The boneheaded decision to cut a full year out of the development schedule is just breathtaking. Can you imagine how things would have unfolded if these cars had hit the streets without all (or even most) of the problems? These cars would have ruled 1958-60. It is not inconceivable that Chrysler could have regained its rightful place as No. 2 of the big 3. As it turned out, both Ford and GM did pretty well with some fairly unappealing cars, partly because of the great Mopar implosion caused by the absolutely horrid 57s.
These cars weren’t just compromised by a rushed development schedule. After these cars debuted, and Chrysler was selling them faster than they could be built, plant managers shipped cars regardless of build quality. According to one story, if several cars had been side-lined for repairs, plant managers simply said, “Ship them,” regardless of whether the repairs had been made, to fill dealer orders.
In his book, Glory Days: When Horsepower and Passion Ruled Detroit, Jim Wangers, who briefly worked for Chrysler Corporation during this period, relates an interesting story.
The corporation was receiving complaints about severe water leaks, particularly with the four-door hardtops. To show that Chrysler was addressing this problem, the corporation set up a more thorough “water spray” test that was supposedly conducted on each car before it could be shipped to dealers. The press was suitably impressed. Only problem was that the corporation never incorporated that “water spray” test as part of the regular production process…after the showing to the press, Chrysler dismantled the “water spray” test and continued to ship the cars to dealers as fast as possible!
Ah, the good old days…they weren’t really that good! Makes me appreciate the effect that the “boring” Camry and Accord have had on the quality and reliability of today’s cars.
In the early 1980s book Going For Broke – The Chrysler Story, the practice of shipping everything out the door, ready or not, continued pretty much unabated through the Lynn Townsend years. Townsend was obsessed with volume. As long as the company recovered from the horrible 1961-62 years, volume growth was easy, and quality was not too bad. But when the industry started to soften in 1966-68 (after a breakout 1965) the pressure to ship junk intensified. Cars lined up for remedial work were sent out anyway to make quotas. By 1969-70 things were getting pretty bad. I don’t think Chrysler ever did have a significant quality metric that the plants had to meet all through the Lynn Townsend era (through 1975). A new Mopar was always a crap shoot in those years – the good ones were great, and the bad ones could be horrible.
Consumer Reports used to include the number of what it called “sample defects” on cars that it tested. The magazine bought cars directly from the dealers for testing, instead of relying on cars supplied by the factory, as the “buff books” did, so it avoided specially massaged and prepped cars.
The record for the highest number of sample defects the magazine ever recorded on one car was on a 1970 Plymouth Belvedere or Satellite, if I recall correctly.
I remember those sample defects. I thought the all-time high was something like 43 defects in one full-size Mopar from the 1974-77 era, but I could be wrong about that (except it was definitely a Chrysler product).
CR stopped reporting sample defects about 10-15 years ago when their number typically dropped to one or two per car. Yes, cars really are better today!
Good point, I remember an article from Jeffrey Goshall of Collectible Automobile about the ’57 Mopar and he mentionned they studied to do a facefilt of the ’55-56 body for ’57 and release them for ’58 instead but seeing the drop of sales in ’56, decideded to go right away with all-new for ’57.
Now we could wonder if the Forward look was introduced in ’58 instead of ’57 how they could had fared the “Eisenhower recession”?
I think this link was posted here another time…but it is SUCH a revelation. Memories of the ’57 “Suddenly” from before they were introduced.
http://www.allpar.com/history/inside/plymouth-5.html
I was born in 1957, and as I grew up in the 60’s there were many MoPars in the immediate and extended family.
-two 1960 Valiants – a sedan and a wagon
-1960 Plymouth
-1961 Chrysler New Yorker 4-door hardtop
-1963 Chrysler wagon
-1965 Plymouth Fury
-1966 Dodge Coronet
-1968 Dodge Polara
Those are the ones I can remember anyway. The only negative I remember was my dad’s complaining about the gas mileage on the ’65 as he began a new job with a 100-mile round trip. He immediately traded it on a ’65 VW Beetle, which only lasted a year.
Uncle Dick and Aunt Pat – who were also my conduit to never-ending Tri-Five Chevy love, all the way back in 1966-68…happened to have had both a ’57 and ’58 Plymouth at that same time. IIRC the ’58 was on blocks, being junked, while they drove the ’57 as one of their rides (they also had a ’59 Rambler and a ’56 Chevy 210 2-door sedan).
I never connected, nor understood until just within the past few years, what total POS’s these ’57’s were when new…I never would have guessed as I’d learned so many iconic ChryCo features were introduced in ’57, and virtually all my MoPar memories from the 60’s were good ones.
When I got my license in 1973, I drove a ’66 300 (non-letter of course) w/a 440. Later I owned a ’68 Newport convertible, also 440-equipped, a ’67 Sport Fury fast top with a 383 and in 1982, a ’66 4-door slant-6/stick Dart I called “Dartface”. I didn’t own any of the above cars for very long…I was and remain a Chevy fanatic…but I can’t complain about any of the above cars.
Of course by the end of the 70’s a friend’s parents had bought a new Aspen – which broke a rear axle within months of purchase. And another aunt and uncle had a ’72 Fury fall apart on them in ’79…even the motor mounts (just a 318) had broken.
And from the 80’s forward, there were numerous K-car variations among my relatives. Better quality than the 70’s but no longer special like the 60’s with Torsion-Quiet ride and those indestructible Torque-Flites.
There’s a lot of fascinating Chrysler history out there…but honestly, the more I learn, the more I marvel that the company’s still in business.
The motor mounts needed replaced on my Dad’s 72 Polara 318. The driver’s window fell into the door within a few weeks of ownership.
Otherwise, it was a good car. He had it 15 years.
This car most perfectly embodies why Toyota (et al) became so successful in the US. The turning point in the Big Three came in the mid fifties, when the obsession with flash over substance became seriously unbalanced. What is a fin? The symbol of a shark lurking beneath the surface. The shark that ended up eating itself.
American car quality (with some exceptions) went generally downhill for several decades, and the ’57 Plymouth is the poster boy not just for Chrysler, but the whole industry. It took Toyota’s obsession with quality to prove what a wrong turn the American industry had made, but not before a long, slow crash and burn that finally ended almost exactly 50 years later.
The quality-control problems with the likes of the Plymouth significantly fueled the growth of the Rambler in the late-50s and early-60s. Up through 1962 AMC’s build quality was still “old school.” And while its cars weren’t technically sophisticated or even particularly reliable, they were unusually practical for American cars of that period. They seemed like a good, honest value.
In a very real sense the late-50s and early-60s Rambler was the granddaddy of the Toyota Camry. What’s tragic is that after George Romney left AMC his successors largely threw away his business model and instead adopted Big Three groupthink. The flashy but troubled 1967 Rebels/Ambassadors/Marlins essentially repeated Chrysler’s big mistake of a decade earlier.
The funny thing is after having read this I’ve realized something. Looking at Auto Trader Classics, eBay, the local Craigslist I will see 40s and early 50s Chrysler Co cars for sale and mid 60s and up Chrysler Co cars for sale but almost nothing from about 57 to about 65. That is a huge testament to lack of quality.
Those thing have got to be one of, if not, my favorite cars of all time. Kinda funny that the car got really ugly for 1960. Even the 1959’s were kinda ugly. But the 57/58’s are one of the best designs to ever leave a factory.
And they’re unique in that the second year refresh was prettier than the original. I’ve always felt the ’58 front end (real dual headlights, cleaner lower grille) was superior to the ’57. In the rear, I liked the ’57’s tall tail lights better, but the drop-off in design was entirely acceptable.
All in all, though, the 50’s Chrysler designs that really turn me on, though, were the 1956 models. A fine line between flash and restraint (for the time, anyway). And a much cleaner design.
Was it only the Fury’s that got the under taillight exhaust pipe? I always thought that was cool too. I would love to own one of these someday.
I really don’t know what they were thinking when they did the 59/60 Savoy/Belvedere/Fury.
You may be able to tell from my avatar, but I am the guy to stand up for the 59. In truth, the Plymouth was the only Mopar where I liked the 59 better than the 57-58. The 57 looked wrong with the single headlights pretending to be duals, and the 58 little round taillight trying to fill that big fin just looked wrong. Also, I never liked the dash as well. Also, the 59s were substantially better cars (they should have been, with another 2 years to sort out the problems.) Even so, my 59 leaked water onto the driver floor. But this was 1979, so I suppose the 20 year old rubber seals could be forgiven. But with better design, it would not have been an issue. To drive, it was one of my favorite cars of all time. It drove like a car 10 years newer than it was, something not many late 50s cars could boast of.
On the 1960? I am right there with you.
Well, couldn’t one just replace the 57’s headlights with 58 headlamps? Or would one run into problems?
Do you still own the 59?
I think that there was a retrofit kit on the headlights. I understand that several states had still not legalized quad lights in late 1956.
Sadly, the 59 was back in my college years of trade your car every 6 months because of falling in love with something else. At least the 59 Fury sedan was replaced by another Mopar – a 71 slant 6 Scamp. But I am not sure that I ever enjoyed driving another car as much as I did that ’59.
A 59 Fury was my first writeup for Curbside Classic (from a car that Paul found in Oregon) https://www.curbsideclassic.com/uncategorized/curbside-classic-1959-plymouth-fury-love-transcends-reason/
Great story on an interesting car. The photos reveal the overall shoddiness of the build quality. Look at the fit of the hood and the trunk…and this car is now probably better built than when it left the factory.
While Exner’s 1957 cars get the credit for setting the proportions for 1960s cars, the 1957 Ford had the same basic proportions, minus the prominent tailfins. In many ways, it did a better job of predicting the future than the 1957 Mopars.
The 1957 Ford was as badly built as the Mopars, but Ford moved faster to improve build quality. The 1958 model contained several real improvements designed to strengthen and stiffen the structure, and the 1959 model was probably the best built of “low price three” that year. Of course, Ford fell off the cliff again with the 1960 model, which was rushed into production when Ford got wind of what Chevrolet had planned for 1959.
My aunt had one of these, a new ’57 Savoy 4-door sedan in red with a white-painted roof, albeit with the ancient flathead six. It was quite a car to look at and ride in.
However, she had so many problems with it (I was too young to remember the specifics), that she swore off Mopar forever. The Plymouth was traded for a ’59 Chevy Bel Air six.
My Dad brought home a 1957 Plymouth In 1958 IIRC. It was a stripper. It was white with a blue interior. The only option was a heater, not even a radio. Six cylinder with a 3 speed column shift. It was screwed together well enough to last past 200,000 miles. It was on it’s 3rd replacement engine when it finally died. I think he must have been one of the few that got his money’s worth out of those cars.
Yeah, your dad was one of the rare ones. And while it’s bragging time nowadays regarding such a car life, back then he was probably getting a lot of long, somewhat less than polite, looks regarding that car. Obviously it didn’t matter to him.
I’m sorry, but I can’t look at one of these without being scared. I’m too reminded of the 1983 movie “Christine”. It’s a scary car!!
I not only read the book, but saw the movie several years later and found the book so much better than the film.
But yeah, that car has a bit of a scary stance to it in some situations.
Something really stands out in these stories: We all forget that people actually did trade in cars every three years back then. No doubt partially from a quality standpoint, but also there was a definite lack of status if you were driving a four year old car. And buying used? Man, you must have been on poverty row, with the wolf beating at your door, and absolutely no pride in yourself or your family whatsoever.
This is how I learned cars back then.
Car styles changed much more rapidly in those days. A mint-condition 1955 Chevrolet or Plymouth looked “old” by 1959, and not just to car enthusiasts. Even people who weren’t particularly interested in cars understood the general progression of automobile styling at that time (longer, lower, wider and with more glass area). ALL manufacturers were following these trends.
Today, a 2008 model of virtually anything – let alone a 2002 or 2003 model – doesn’t stand out on the streets anymore. One reason is that there is no real, constant theme in the progression of automobile styling. If you parked a mint-condition 2003 Accord sedan next to a 2012 Accord, and asked people not interested in cars which one is newer, they would not necessarily know.
True. In 1970, a 1960 anything was an OLD car, and generally speaking looked like crap. Either trashed original paint or a quickie re-spray. But then, a 10-year old car at that time was probably on its third or fourth owner.
Absolutely true! Buying a used car was “buying someone else’s problems.” The neighbors on either side of us traded every 2 or 3 years. Although we always bought new, we were the oddballs that kept the family Chevy for 6 years. But in those days we racked up only 5000 miles per year, so our cars only had 30,000 miles when we let them go.
As far as styling, we got lucky. We had a ’55 that was recognized early on as a classic. Then we got to skip the outrageous ’58-’60s and settled on a ’61, the basis of the Chevy’s B-body styling until 1964.
The ’67 was good-looking and could still fit in our 1932-era garage, which would not be the case for the ’71 and later.
So a ’73 Monte Carlo was the next in line.
My Dad bought one in 1959 to replace the 1938 Desoto. It was a blue Savoy with flathead six, I should look for a photo of that..
Anyway, it rusted ferociously, the torsion bars broke, and by the time I came around it had been replaced by the 1960 Pontiac.
We never had another Chrysler product until the 1986 Dodge Colt, which was really a Mistubishi so you can tell how impressed he was with the 57.
I really love the ’57’s, yet as everyone says they represent everything that’s wrong with the planned obsolescence in American manufacturing. Imagine buying a car today that in less than three years has terminal structural rust like the 57-61 mopars. I mean if you want a car that unreliable and rustprone you’d have to buy either a 1997-2013 Mercedes C or E class It seems that Mercedes learned more from Chrysler than vice versa after the Daimler Chrysler merger.
Seriously though, it wasn’t the Japanese who first changed the American mindset away from disposable cars. Volvo is the one who is responsible for this at least as far as the public consciousness is concerned. Their ad campaigns sold the wide public that a durable long lasting car was a status symbol. Driving a ten year old Volvo showed that you were smart enough not to drink the kool aid. They had ads showing five year old sleds disappearing into the crusher with Volvos driving the other direction. Were it not for the paradigm shift by Volvo and their ad agency, people wouldn’t have been primed for driving Toyotas that could give those outside of the rust belt a little bit of Volvo durability at Plymouth prices.
Although I drive a Volvo 245 today, its unrelenting durability and sameyness does make me want to go to the Mopars of my youth. Ya know- maybe I just had good ChryslerKarma, but aside from cheap trim and lower quarter rust, every mopar I’ve had from a ’70 Sport Fury 383, through a ’74 Duster and ’78 Volare and even the later ’96 Dakota have been rock solid reliable- in a repair per year average far, far, far better than my Volvo ever was even when it was new.
I must say that everything is just marketing bunk. Sure the ’57s were underdeveloped, as are ALL American cars in their first year. The reality is that there are bad Toyotas, Volvos, and Hondas too. When the 240 was released in ’75 they rotted like nothing due to Soviet steel, had numerous faults and the like. By the ’90s and 00’s Taliban Toyota Tacomas would rot in half in the desert or space vacuum, and Mercedes I have already discussed.
Our understanding of cars from a ‘good and ‘bad’ point of view is based more on popular culture, marketing, and journalism that has no place for the universal unevenness of manufacturing quality. Still, if I spent the price of a Levittown house on a ’57 Imprerial LeBaron, I’d live the rest of my life as a Mopar basher and probably tow the heap down to my local Packard/Mercedes dealer by ’59.
Didn’t VW played a similar role as well with the old Beetle?
VW was the poster child for anti-planned adolescence, and based the meat of their advertising around it for many years far much more than Volvo which didn’t have near the distribution nor sales of VW, In any where but the coasts you’d be hard pressed to find a Volvo dealer in the 60’s and even a lot of the 70’s but VW was pretty much everywhere.
Lincoln advertising trumpeted the lack of annual styling changes in the suicide-door Continentals (“the Classic Look will continue”) for several years.
Lincoln advertising also played up the idea of regular detail improvements, as opposed to change for the sake of change, along with stringent (for that time) quality control efforts. Unfortunately, the division had abandoned that message by 1970.
In a similar idea, Cadillac used to feature a 2 year old model in the background of a new car in a lot of 1960s magazine advertising. The pitch was that a 2 year old Cadillac was a great way to get into Cadillac luxury for less.
Those Cadillacs used to keep a very high resale value too because they were so well built AND Cadillac actually built LESS than the demand. What novel ideas.
That’s exactly the plan my great uncle followed. He snapped up a super clean ’58 Fleetwood Sixty Special in an estate sale around 1960.
“VW was the poster child for anti-planned adolescence”. No kidding, that’s why all us hippies drove them!
Spellcheck is priceless.
I never though I’d hear the words Lithe and Athletic referring to pretty much any Mopar but certainly not the Forward Look cars. I’d call the Forward Look cars Imposing or maybe even Muscular if anything positive, or Gaudy, Overwrought, or Kitschy if I wasn’t feeling overly kind.
I have to side with Laurence on this one. When comparing the 57-58 Mopars to anything else made at that time, the Mopars were very cleanly styled. Lots of sculpting and very restrained on the chrome (for the time period). I think that the words Lithe and Athletic fit these cars perfectly, certainly in the world of large American cars of the era. 1959 Dodge excepted.
I’m sorry but the GM cars of 57 look much more “lithe and athletic” than do the Forward Look cars. I’m also not seeing the restraint in the chrome dept compared to others of the era. For example the 57 Buick pictured above, or even the top of the line 4 holer Roadmaster, wore less chrome and looked far more athletic and lithe.
The 1957 Chevrolet has clean styling and no-nonsense proportions, but I wouldn’t call any other 1957 GM car “lithe and athletic.”
GM’s 1957 cars look either roly-poly (Pontiac and Cadillac) or flabby and ready to sag in the middle (Oldsmobile and Buick).
I would disagree, Eric. C body Buicks are sharp lookers, yes, but they still had an imposing bulky and “soft” look that got worse for ’58. The “B” body Buicks (and Oldsmobiles) with the three piece rear window caused pundits in the press back then to say “Suddenly It’s 1949!” . . . . My Great Uncle had a salmon pink 4 door Plymouth Plaza. Grey interior which by 1964, looked pretty archaic. He kept it until ’66 when he traded it on a Dodge D-100.
As far as snapping torsion bars, I’d heard only just the early run of Plymouths had that problem and that deletion was for economy measures; they didn’t have the rubber gromets in the torsion bar anchors. The ’57-58’s (Plymouth) also kept the appliance like “refrigerator” door handles instead of the inset ones on other Mopars of that era. Cost factors.
When I was real small, I remember my granparents had a white over black with white insert ’58 Belevedere hardtop sedan. Not sure if they ever experienced leaks and spring/summertime Missouri weather can generate monsoon type rainfall.
The ’57 has styled grille slots below the bumper, forty years ahead of its time. Really striking and original at the time. Now it’s so common as to be nearly universal for cars to be mostly “mouth-breathers” through styled slots, with a little grille above mainly to “look right”.
In ’58 the main grille extended below the bumper into this area, and in ’59 it went to the full-width slot that was the common sixties form until the battering rams came along.
This has always been such a fabulous car. I like the way the fin pops up, keeping the belt line low to show off that graceful hardtop line. Photography to die for as always.
I always liked the ’58 front end better, mostly for the quad headlights but also because the grill below the bumper matched the grill above it. These are one of my favorite designs ever. I’d love to have a blue one with a 392 Hemi ;).
I think that you would have to put your own Hemi in. From the factory, these came with the wide block 318 poly in various states of tune and with a 350 that was an early B series big block (related to the 361 that would be the top engine on the 59.) I don’t believe that the 392 was used in anything short of the Imperial, 300D or New Yorker. But you are right, it would sure be fun to drive. 🙂
Oh I know they never came with a 392. I would just put one in, and leave the outside stock of course. It would be a pretty fun sleeper :).
I recognize that car — it’s in the Chrysler Museum and I’ve seen it! I actually prefer the ’58 where the upper and lower grilles match. The ’59, like the other Mopars, looks like a parody of the clean ’57 and ’58s. Facelifts, like movie sequels, generally aren’t as good as the originals.
Agree with you on the ’59s. Mopar took the Plymouth ’57 and ’58 front fenders and stamped a crease in them for twin eyebrows over the headlights. A cheap and quick styling change. I would love a ’59 – don’t get me wrong. And the ’59 quality was greatly improved over the ’57s.
I never cared for the reverse slant the fins on the back of the 59s, nor the taillights. The 57s and 58s just look so much more cohesive between the front and rear.
No matter the problems, no matter what they represent, the forward look Plymouths have always been one of my favorite car designs ever. No argument of practicality, quality, efficiency, aerodynamics and space utilization can sway my desire to want one of these. I’m sure Arnie Cunningham felt the same way. (seriously can anyone think of a better car to portray Christine?)
I had a Sundance and a Neon; trust me. Mopar’s POS workmanship did not end with the Forward Look cars. It’s been going on for quite some time.
I’ve heard that the 57 Imperials didn’t suffer even close to the same build quality and rust/reliability issues? My granddad bought a ’57 new and drove it til
’68 when he traded it on a Cutlass Supreme… My dad said it was still in good shape…
I don’t believe the Imperials suffered from near as much defects and maladies as their lower priced sibblings. That may have been from their overall low production numbers. The ’59 Chrysler corporate report mentions a new separate factory for Imperial and touts the extra quality assurance and build measures that would be going into the 1960 models. That trend actually occured, but ended when low Imperial volume forced it into a unibody clone of the New Yorker for ’67 and moved Imperial assembly back to Jefferson Avenue along side Newports, 300’s and New Yorkers.
This was Dad’s first new car when the 2nd runt came along (me!) and his ’51 Chevy 2 door no longer fit the brood. When we moved out to suburbia and runt 3 came along a few years later, he bought a gently used black ’61 Chrysler Newport as well.
I don’t remember if the ’57 was troublesome, but based on all the bad press I would guess somewhat since he traded it in/junked it for a ’66 Ford Ranch Wagon. Although 9-10 years was certainly a decent run back then.
My Dad had a 1957 Plymouth four door with a Hemi and Torqueflite. He always said it was the fastest car he’d ever had. Compared to the 1952 Chevy he had before it, the Plymouth was a rocket ship. He bought it used, one year old. The car was not well built and rusted like crazy but dad loved the car because it had loads of guts.
In early 1961, my brother was thought to be ill with meningitis, and dad went from Ottawa to St Hubert, near Montreal, to pick up his mom and bring her to help out in the mayhem. He always said he “turned off the dash lights so Mum couldn’t see how fast I was going.” He put it to the rug there and back, not hard since there wasn’t a lot of traffic in those days. It was buried for like four hours and on the way back, it overheated. Dad didn’t care under the circumstances and had ‘ater full speed ahead. When he got to the hospital in Ottawa, the rad was bone dry.
Dad filled it up and went to the local Chevy dealer, Guest Motors. The Plymouth had been appraised the week before, and it was good for thirty days. Dad thus traded the Plymouth which had a cracked block on his first new car, a 1961 Chevy Biscayne stripper, Stovebolt and three on the tree.
No one has mentioned it yet, but I thought the ’57 Plymouth’s full wheel covers were one of the best designs ever — clean yet highly styled and imaginative. Weren’t these used by customizers in later years?
Nice car, but as many have said, there were a lot of quality issues with Mopar products over the years. My dad regularly told the story of a friend of his who bought a new Chrysler in the late ’60’s. It was a complete lemon, and it was never out of the shop. The last straw came when one of the front fenders came off on the highway. He cut out a big lemon made of sheet metal, mounted it on the roof, and wrote “A Chrysler Canada Product” on it. The local Chrysler people weren’t pleased, but they finally relented and gave him a new car, which he had much better luck with.
I grew up around Forwardlook vehicles in the mid to late 60’s .
They were cheap to buy, and my dad being a mechanic and father of eight kids couldn’t afford anything newer.
The three FL Plymouths that we owned were all station wagons(remember eight kids).
0ne being a 58 Suburban nine passenger , the other two being 60 Suburbans.
Maybe because only the good ones survive, but all three of these Suburbans were pretty trouble free vehicles for my Dad.
The 58 with 318 torqueflite never caused him any problems mechanically.
Ten years of Minnesota winters / salt is what ultimately sent it to the junkyard.
The two 60 Suburbans were as good if not better than the 58.
One was a six passenger slant six torqueflite stripper car that my Dad really liked.
Good on gas , and besides normal maintenance gave him no problems well past 100,000 miles
The second 60 we owned was a nine passenger with 318 and three speed manual transmission .
I believe we had that one in 1971 or so , though even though it was old at the time , it really caused us no problems beyond normal type maintenence.
To me 60 Plymouth’s look like a caricature of the 57-58’s when they are in sedan , or hardtop form.
But when you put those oversized fins on a wagon they look pretty good!
i was 15 in 83 and yes i hate to say it but went and saw christeen..and i have been smitten with thease plymouths ever since hopefully one day ill have the money to own one ive only ever seen one in the flesh i never get tired of looking at thease cars this 57 belveder is truly stunning such an understated elegant car but the shape ..wow….so athletic and sexy yes id like a 58 fury like christeen..there is a fantastic youtube vid of the clearing of the kraukoff scrapyard in sweden a couple are hoisting a very very rusty 58 onto a flat bed there filmed sweeping the leaves of that car like it was the most rare and beautifull thing in the world..i dont blame them …..one day,one day..dxx
I watched the TV detective series, “Peter Gunn” every week and each season he got a new Plymouth Fury convertible. I thought he was so cool, partly because of his car. He also had a hot girlfriend who was a singer in a jazz club. I can’t remember her name.
There’s a beatufilly restored version of these cruising around Waterloo these days. The guy just passed me in town yesterday. This one is red with white panels, kind of like Michael’s example, including the wide whitewalls. It was 102 and sunny and the guy had all four windows rolled down.
I’d like to see the internal documents at GM late 1956 detailing their shortcomings, angst and action and the ones at Chrysler 1957 on what is going wrong with design and production (if they were even aware). And the poor GM guys didn’t know yet about the Mopar shortcomings. I’d like to see the Chrysler prototype test vehicles. Destroying these mules should be a crime. It was just a 2-year gestation from concept to production vehicles, wasn’t it? Problems unavoidable!
We bought a 1957 Plymouth Belvedere 2dr HT for $150 in the modern era of 1966 when the car looked like a clown car from yesteryear. Power everything including windows and seat. The California car had no rust, didn’t leak, and we drove it cross-country twice. My first car. I consider it style perfection for its era and price with basic body dimensions that did predict the 1960s.
(note to site author, your words are well chosen, informative, and without fat and fluff)
I have owned my ’59 Dodge Coronet since 1983…although plagued with many of the issues described in many of posts, driving this car just makes me smile…Jet-trail tailights, Indicolor speedometer, and swivel seats…just work for me!
Your ’59 is beautiful, Don!
____
These late 50’s Dodge/Chrysler/Plymouth cars look the best in my book. (despite some of the negative nit-picking comments on this article). I’d put up with any problems in a heartbeat if I could own one of these Mopars!!
Thanks!