Besides just building cars, one of the primary functions of an automobile manufacturer is to sell their product by setting it apart from the competition. If doing so necessitates something truly creative, that is even better. In this never ending quest to win market share, automobile manufacturers have performed some rather amazing tests of durability.
Over the years, Ford has had several such methods of setting themselves apart. During September 1956, Ford spent nineteen days breaking 458 speed and endurance records that truly did set them apart.
It started with the 1956 model year. In their effort to stand out, Chrysler Corporation sent a new 1956 Dodge to Bonneville Salt Flats, Utah, for speed and endurance testing. Hardly a slouch by any measure, this Dodge would achieve a number of highly impressive speed and endurance goals in its fifteen days of running, such as averaging 109.48 mph for a distance of 4,000 miles and 105.39 mph for four consecutive days. This Dodge would ultimately travel over 30,000 miles at an average speed of 93.51 mph.
For the 1957 model year, Ford was introducing an entirely new line of cars. These cars personified the “longer, lower, and wider” theme so prevalent at the time in North America. Wanting to tap into some the excitement created by Dodge, as well as negate their publicity, Ford upped the ante with their plan.
Taking three pre-production prototypes built in June 1956, Ford prepared each for extended, high speed use. Of the three, there was one convertible and two enclosed models. The yellow and black 1957 Ford Fairlane seen at the top is one of the two steel roofed cars used at Bonneville.
Motivation for these cars was Ford’s 312 cubic inch V8 engines topped by two, four barrel carburetors. A few sources indicated the possibility of multiple engine outputs among the cars, leading one to wonder if perhaps the convertible had only a single four-barrel carburetor. Despite any variations in engine output, each car packed a three speed manual transmission.
In an effort to nullify any charges of bias, all testing was conducted and monitored by the United States Auto Club; the USAC also oversaw all preparation made to the cars. Ford’s goal was to run for 50,000 miles, a distance comparable to about five years of ordinary retail use.
Also present during the testing for further oversight and documentation were representatives from the Federation Internationale de Automobile in France.
The track used at Bonneville was a ten mile oval. Using the efforts of fourteen drivers, each having a three to six hour shift, the endurance test commenced on September 9, 1956, shortly after noon.
This particular Ford, labeled as Car 2 at the time, departed at 1504 hours on September 9, with twenty-four year old race driver Jerry Unser, Jr., at the helm. Its first pitstop came about 140 miles later – it lasted seventeen seconds.
The second steel roofed car was a blue and white Fairlane. These two, along with the convertible, underwent acceleration tests before hitting the ten mile track. The convertible did not participate in the 50,000 mile endurance testing.
What was this testing meant to prove? Danny Eames, crew chief for this endeavor, stated, “This kind of test is designed to improve the breed of cars, to test their durability. We’re not after mere speed.
“The big thing is to torture the engine, the chassis, the body, and all the thousands of parts at high speed for tremendous distances. Here we’ve got an all-new car, a new kind of Ford, and we wanted to prove to ourselves, as well as the American people, just what we had.”
The desire to torture all moving parts quickly came to fruition. After beginning the challenge at 120 miles per hour, then dropping to 110 mph twenty-four hours later, every drive line component was subjected to the most strenuous automotive workout that set the record for quickest accumulation of mileage ever. During the course of the test, the track itself became filled with many sizable potholes, testing the stamina of the suspension. It was a grueling workout for these two cars.
On the flip-side, severe tedium soon overtook the pit crews and other support personnel. With pitstops coming a little over an hour apart – and lasting for less than twenty seconds – there was a lot of idle time and monotony. At one point, stemming from complete boredom, one of the crew members splashed the contents of a cup of water on the front of one of the passing Fairlanes. With the water blob being hit at 110 miles per hour, it was like hitting a solid object, causing the water to rip through the windshield. The glass was taped up and the car continued on its way.
At the end of the testing, Car 1 had averaged 108.16 miles per hour, including all stops, for 50,000 miles. Car 2 averaged just over 107 miles per hour. This is the only one of the three known to exist.
Said Eames midway through the testing: “There it is, running like a streak, running perfectly after 30,000 miles at over 110 miles per hour. Still sweet. Still smooth. This is better than fine-car performance. This is a damned fine automobile.”
Model year 1957 was a very good one for Ford, as they outsold Chevrolet. Did the longest left turn in history contribute to that success? One can’t help but think it was a factor.
Pictures of the 1957 Ford found at the Russo and Steele website.
It reminds me of the beafed up 57 Fairlane Robert Mitchum drove ti the movie “Thunder Road”
Saw the first photo and thought the same thing. The musical theme for the movie also runs through my head when I see a 57 two door.
As for FOMOCO endurance runs, anybody remember the 1964 Mercury Comet Caliente test ? Music for that was something like “100,000 miles at a 100 miles an hour, on the banks of the rugged big D”. Big “D” being Daytona Speedway.
One of my favorite movies. Somewhere, I’ve got an old 45 of Robert Mitchum singing the title song.
I never saw the movie, but the Bruce Springsteen song of the same name is one of my favorites, and could easily be applied to this car: “you ain’t a beauty, but hey, you’re alright”
When I was a very small child, I recall these cars being nursed along in Quebec. One family member had one, but in the winter he actually parked in the back yard under a tarp. Even that couldn’t keep it from rusting to dust by 1972.
There were no inner fenders on these cars. This caused dirt and salt to build up under the headlight buckets. Every 1957 Ford I ever saw was rusted out in the front.
I’m not a Ford Man by any means but I’ve always loved the ’57 Fairlanes .
Good looking , light and nimble when driven .
-Nate
Agreed. I loved all the 1955-59 Fords, including the often disdained ’58.
When I die and go to heaven, i,ll take my ride in a 57. Thank you Jason , great story.
Excellent article, Jason. I had never read about these tests before.
We very seldom see the base 57 Fairlane with its simpler side trim. I kind of like this yellow and black combo. These were really attractive cars, with the possible exception of the front end that is a mite clunky.
Amazing how popular these (and Plymouths) were yet how anyone born in the last 20 years would think that nothing but Chevys were built that year.
Especially since, against the Fords and Plymouths of that year, the ’57 Chevy was very much an also ran. Dad never liked them too much after having gone thru a killer ’55 model year, and done rather well with the ’56’s. The ’57 sold (of course it did, it’s a Chevy) but it was obvious that dad wasn’t selling the most desirable car for that year. Which was a really odd occurrence, the only year of my life when dad was selling Chevies and didn’t have the hot product.
Of course, then came 1958 and all was forgiven. If anything dad now had a car to sell that was even more desirable than the ’55, and it sold like hotcakes. The ’58 Impala was THE killer car of the year.
To this day, I still consider the ’57 Chevy the most overrated car of my lifetime, and cannot understand the worship.
The ’57 Chevy worship has gotten a bit out of hand, but its appeal is all-too obvious. It was drastically better built than the junky ’57 Plymouths or Fords, weighed less, went like stink with the 283, was super amenable to performance upgrades, and was the obvious choice for becoming the replacement for the 30s Fords as the hot rod of choice.
You might not feel like worshiping it, but it’s pretty obvious why so many did, right from the get-go. It had intrinsic qualities the other two didn’t. Most of all, drastically better build quality and trim size.
I find your comment a bit surprising, given that you often rail against the ever-increasingly big and wallowing American cars. In the low-price field, the bloat all started in 1957, with the much bigger Ford and Plymouth. The Chevy was still trim, and very much “right sized”.
FWIW, I consider the ’58 Chevy highly over-rated; a wallowing, flabby, shudderring floppy pile of excess. Maybe nice to look at, from a distance. Give me a tri-five any day, with which to run circles around a ’58.
The ’58 is a bit of an anomaly with me, probably because I feel it’s one of the few truly good looking cars what we usually think of when we say “the 50’s”.
Occasionally you have to stop and remind yourself that thru most of the 1950’s there was no rock and roll, and only Cadillacs had tailfins.
The Encyclopedia of American cars has the 1957 Chevy 150 2dr weighing in at 3211 pounds. Doesn’t state whether that’s for the V8 or six, but other sources have the six weighing 3 pounds more than the V8.
The same Encyclopedia has the 1957 Ford Custom 2dr business sedan weighing in at, wait! This must be a typo – at 3202 pounds!
The Ford Fairlane 500 convertibles were of course heavier than the Chevy Bel Air flop tops, 3536 lbs vs 3409 lbs, due to their longer wheelbases, but the convertibles raced in their own NASCAR class while USAC and NASCAR sedans raced the lightest 2drs available.
1958 saw all Chevies grow to 117.5 inch wheelbases, while Ford retained its 116 wb for the Custom 300. The lightest Chevy that year came in at 3356 lbs (3551 with the 348) while the lightest Ford, the Custom business sedan, came in at 3227 lbs.
Over at Allpar, a fellow named Curtis Redgap wrote a multi-installment series about his years with his family’s Mopar dealership that covers from about 1954 into maybe 1963 or 64. I read it several years ago, but with your dealership history, you might find it fun. He recalls the way the 57 Mopars flew off the lot but goes into a lot of the cars problems too. I recall a story there where two brothers who couldn’t decide between a new Ford and a Plymouth each got a salesman and a demo, then met and raced them (with really pissed salesmen in the front seats). The Plymouth trounced the Ford and the brothers bought 2 Plymouths. The Plymouth salesman was still not very happy, but the Ford guy who lost the sale was even unhappier. I recall reading somewhere else that even the stylists who worked on the 57 Chevy never liked it much. However, the joke was on everyone else because the Chevy turned out to be the best car over the long haul, after the rest rusted away.
I remember that. The one that really stuck with me was grandpa and dad coming back from the dealer-only introduction meeting for the ’57’s, and grandpa decided he’s keeping his ’56. Because he thought the ’57’s were junk.
Thank you. Digging through some old books, I encountered some old promotional material from the time of this test. Upon googling it, I found the car, which was icing on the cake. Also found were a bunch of typed sheets used at the time of the testing.
However, what got me started was an ad from the same book stating how a ’58 Mercury had been driven across every continent – except Antartica, presumably.
Really interesting article. Always liked this ’57 redesign, it seemed so sleek and space-agey. I have never seen this simplified trim version of the Fairlane, though. The plain Fairlane had this trim:
My maternal grandfather had a ’57 Ford in the base trim and gray color. I didnt like it as it was a pretty drab interpretation of an otherwise good looking style. Later in life, I owned a ’57 Chevy. Virtually no Plymouths survived because of rust, and general poor build quality. I dont know for sure why more Fords didnt, but I suspect that the interchangeability of the Chevy drivetrains with later Chevy’s made them serviceable longer than a comparable Ford.
Because the Mopars were rushed to market and were total POS that rusted away…and the Fords, while not having the build quality issues ChryCo had, rusted away with almost Vega-like rapidity.
While GM – particularly Chevrolet – was still playing at the top of its game. 1958 would be their POS year with pretty but poorly engineered cars that only excelled in straight-line cruising while looking pretty.
But if you went off these tests, you’d think Ford would be the car that would go the distance.
A generation before this you’d think that Fords were almost the only cars of the 1910s & 20s; being the 1st to use steel gave them a suvivorship edge during that era.
Nice looker,you can’t move for 57 Chevys at car shows today,a 57 Ford is seen less often.You’d never guess Ford outsold them
I’ll be the first to admit that our family’s ’57 Bel Air is overly styled and looked much better in base model form (like the racing models) but I never liked this year Ford with its far protruding headlights and large, round rear lights. I’m not biased though as I love the ’49 Fords. Didn’t Robert Mitcham also drive a ’49 in Thunder Road.
My Aunt and Uncle drove a 57 Country Sedan, red and white into the mid-sixties. It was replaced with a 66 LTD sedan.
A very interesting story Jason thanks. I always felt these were the best looking of the ’57s, certainly better looking than the Chevy and not as period typecast as the Chrysler Forward Look cars. The next time Ford made a better looking car than Chevy, in ’69, they outsold them again.
I remember my Dad talking about my Grandpa’s ’57. He said it always need a front suspension alignment and was constantly going through mufflers. He said it was an awful, under-engineeered car. He said the ’61 Chrysler Windsor that replaced it drove much better and was more reliable.
I believe in a contemporary road test of a ’57 Ford the rear doors blew open during testing.
One of the things these endurance tests can’t duplicate is age. These cars didn’t age very well. My uncle Had a ’57 he bought new. Within 3 years the headlight buckets were duct taped in.
They are pretty though.
Strange how metal was a lot thicker then but rusted faster.I presume rustproofing has improved a lot in 57 years.I pushed a dent out of my niece’s Fiesta with my hand,wouldn’t be able to do it with the 57 Ford.
I will reaffirm what someone else said above – there were no inner fenders in these. When I bought a 20 year old 59 Plymouth, I stuck my hand up into the fender eyebrow over the headlight bucket on both sides. Good grief, the amount of caked dirt I dug out of there. My car was a very low mile car for its age – and it was still trying to get a little rust peeking out through the metal. A normal use car would have been gone in those places way before then. A constantly moist and salted dirt pack against metal is no way to keep the rust away.
Fender liners have virtually eliminated upper fender rust. Probably more important are advances in metallurgy and stamping technology. Inner structures are designed with fewer, larger panels to reduce traps for debris. New alloys, such as HSLA steel are used in critical areas. Also (obviously) CAD has made “cobbled together” bodies a thing of the past.
Of course, none of this explains why my 12 year old PT Cruiser has a hole in the passenger side rocker panel.
@ JPC Good thing there weren’t any wasp nests hidden there!! LOL!! (c:
My dad bought a 57 Fairlane 500 Town Sedan. It was two-toned with the Inca Gold, shown in the above picture, over brown – if I’m reading the color chart correctly today the brown must have been Silver Mocha Metallic. I believe there also was a gold mylar strip in between the side trim strips.
The headlight bezels were extremely prone to rust and it attacked quickly. My cousins ran a body shop and were kept busy replacing them, including the ones on our car, I believe within three years as noted above. I seem to recall that my cousin said they collected water between the seams. The car was not very well assembled and became a rattle trap over time.
As a kid, I thought it was very cool looking, however, and the 292 moved it along to my dad’s satisfaction. However, I also blame the car’s poor gas mileage for my dad’s purchase of two new 61 Falcons to reduce gas consumption in our household. How I hated those cars! At least they led to the purchase of a 64 Fairlane Sports Coupe and a 65 Thunderbird.
I’m with Syke in that I’ve never liked the 57 Chevy styling (prefer the 56 and 58) but it was built better than the Ford. Our elderly next door neighbors bought a new green 210 sedan in 57 and kept it for six years until it was replaced by a new 63. I remember as it aged it remained rattle free and did not have a spot of rust on it anywhere by 63, in part because it was kept sparkling clean and garaged but also because it was better constructed than the Ford and Chrysler.
And here it is – love those wide whitewalls!
I’m not a fan of this bumble bee edition, but the ’57 Ford was quite attractive – except for the bug-eyed headlights. I just shake my head when I think that people stood in front of the clay mock-up and actually approved those headlights.
Overall, the car seemed light years ahead of the ’57 Chevy, explaining why Ford beat Chevy for the first and only time in quite a span. Beyond the quality issues that some of you mention, I have to assume those headlights have helped make the car relatively ignored as a classic.
Ditto. Those headlights are truly bizarre.
The eyes are kind of insectoid, yes — but from the A-pillar on back, I find this as pretty a full-sizer as anything Ford made throughout the entire 1950s.
The tail’s family resemblance to the beloved first-gen T-Bird doesn’t hurt, of course.
My recollection is that the “Y” block was good for about 60,000 miles before it needed an overhaul. I wonder if these engines were actually random samples from the assembly line.
No cold starts would help enormously.
My understanding is that the Y block’s weakness was poor lubrication in the engine’s upper areas due to sludging. I would imagine that sustained high-speed running would probably have been playing to this engine’s strength.
The Y block has a great postwar quaility to it, from the complicated valvetrain (and very percise) to the overall ruggedness of the deep skirt, the Y block is an interesting engine to a person weened on SBFs and SBCs.
@ Shawnski
Posted February 18, 2014 at 12:43 PM
The Y block has a great postwar quaility to it, from the complicated valvetrain (and very percise) to the overall ruggedness of the deep skirt, the Y block is an interesting engine to a person weened on SBFs and SBCs.
Yes , just so .
However as a long time Gas Station / Used Car Lot / Junkyard Mechanic in The Southwest , I soured on them after the first starter replacement while the Customer waited on a hot day……
My Father In Law bought a nice ’57 Ranchero from us , it has the 312 and dual point Mallory dizzy plus some four barrel carby and it went like stink .
This would have been in 1978 or so , new metallic blue paint and we got $700 for it , a few years later he moved to Guatemala for a few years and sold it cheaply .
-Nate
Says these trial cars all used 312 V8s most of these I recall had the 272 boat anchor up front so not really relevant to the cars we received. 57s rusted pretty bad in our humid coastal climate they must have evaporated really badly if driven on salted roads, perhaps Ford Australia dodged a bullet or two by building the 55/6 for 5 years and not updating every year.
I have a stack of old car magazines from the 50s and one has a comparison test between the 56 Chevy, Ford, Plymouth, and Rambler. They really ragged on the poor build quality of the Chevy citing exposed screws, misinstalled trim that was prone to cutting you, and switchgear that was stiff not because it was new but because it was poorly made. They didn’t have much better to say about the Ford and plymouth. The Rambler won by the way.
That almost sounds like American Motors’ “X-Ray” ad brochures!
The pictured ’56 Dodge really looks dowdy in comparison to those sleek ’57 Fords. We know now of course that the Dodge was the better-built car.
Our family car was a ’55 Chevy back in the day. I don’t remember it having any major reliability or rusting issues, even though we lived in Pittsburgh. Probably not accumulating many miles (5000/year) and being garaged helped. It was replaced by a ’61 Chevy, so we skipped over the really wild-looking years!
Great article, Jason, and a superbly kept historical Ford. I’ve always favoured the quicksilver-derived 1960 models, but this article makes me reconsider the 57.
My experience was with a ’57 Ford 312 — cruiser. It was the last stick-shift in the department and had no trouble reeling in Chevies. It was still running good at 150,000 miles when it was traded off, although the ball joints were starting to go.
I’m not the biggest ’57 Ford fan, but I’m really liking this one. The black lower paint makes the weirdo headlamps look a little less harsh somehow and the interior is very sweet. The little Mobilgas logos and the black steel wheels give it just the slightest whiff of vintage racer, which is actually exactly what it is.
So do stunts like this actually sell cars? I’ve got to believe they contribute at least somewhat. Racing pedigree, however intangible, somehow translates to durability and performance in consumers’ minds. Maybe it’s a trickle-down effect due to word of mouth from the enthusiasts to the mainstream or whatever, but it seems like well-executed factory programs usually result in interesting and successful cars hitting the showrooms. I was just thinking about this phenomenon not too long ago and I ended up concluding it to be valid upon hitting the thought: “look at Lancia in the 80s and look at Lancia now”.
My dad owned a 56 Fairlane with a 312 V8. It was no match for the 57 Chevy in a drag race but in the long distance runs across the almost vacant wide open roads my Dad was often sitting on the hood waiting for Sonny to show up in his Bel Air. In Coolege a guy in our dorm had a 57 Ford Custom that ran a highly competitive drag race against many of the muscle cars of the 60’s
Had a 56 Ford with the aforementioned boat anchor 272 and three on the tree. Liked it but went with a 57 in 61. Amazing to me today that a kid could afford a 4 year old car on the money he made washing pans in a bakery. The 57was a Fairlane (500 I think) and the 312 and automatic (Fordomatic?) would move.
Later I bought a 57 chevy with glide and 283. Memory changes everything and the Ford was pretty new. Can’t say which was faster but both were faster than the 56 Ford. A bicycle would practically have outrun any of the flathead 53s I owned.
If I could have either new I would take the chevy because its a wagon. If all were equal and both were wagons, I would go for the Ford. I may not think so tomorrow.
Jason, Thank you for the article on my car. It is the ninth 1957 Ford built and is a pre-production car. It was prepared by DePaolo Engineering Long Beach in mid 1956. The car is lacking some features and has others not found on production vehicles.
If anybody is local to Southern California this car will be displayed at the All Ford show at Knots Berry Farm on April 27, 2014. I do have a lot of other documentation of the car at Bonneville.
For all you Chevy folks out there. In 1957 Ford outsold Chevrolet in 1957 and you better believe that all the 50 to mid 60 Chevrolets rusted just like the Ford and Chrysler products. I lived in the northeast and on a quiet night you could actually hear them rusting in the garage.