Okay, you might have known that the 1960 Edsel two-door hardtop shared the 1960 Ford Starliner two-door hardtop roof. But I sure didn’t. Ford only manufactured 1960 Edsels for 66 days, and in that time produced a mere 295 two-door hardtops. So, it’s not like these things were ever plentiful.
The ’60 Edsel was just a tarted-up Ford. I like the Ford’s grille but not its tail. I think the Edsel improves on that tail a little. But in what had to be a cost-saving move, the area where the Ford tail lights would have gone is plainly visible, covered by a piece of sheet metal.
Hat tip to Flickr user wainohg for posting these photos, which are credited to an eBay seller.
Note: a rerun of an older post.
The ’60 Edsel had to have been a legal manoeuver to avoid lawsuits from dealers. See we made a go of it for 1960 but the numbers didn’t add up. I know the amount spent to retool for ’60 was a token gesture. Ford was not to be taken seriously here.
The longer wheelbase Fairlane 500 is what killed the Edsel internally. I know they dropped that in 1959 but it was a buzz killer for ’58.
The same thing happened when Studebaker “moved” to Canada and kept producing a token amount of cars for a few years.
They didn’t drop the longer wheelbase in 1959; all Fords had the 119″ wheelbase that year.
As to what killed the Edsel it was a number of factors but the single biggest one was the Recession of 1957-1958 which triggered a viral revulsion in the public against overly large, gaudy and more expensive cars. Think Rambler. And VW/Renault. That’s why the ’59 Edsel dropped the bigger Mercury body Corsair and Citation, and built only the Ford body versions. And that was extended in 1960.
yes they went to one wheelbase in ’59 and it was the longer one.
Agree with your external factors that killed the Edsel. My point was Ford internal factors that killed it too. If you were a Ford die hard and shopped the Fairlane 500 against the Ford based Edsel, the only real difference besides styling was the pushbutton transmission controls and flying saucer speedometer and the slightly larger 361 FE engine. And I would think most would have gone with the Fairlane based on styling.
I suppose the same argument could be made on the Mercury based Edsel vs. the Mercury itself, but I think the Edsel wins on styling there.
\
The Edsel and the DeSoto were just not differentiated enough from their brethren to justify the choice. GM could keep their divisions going until they too made them all similar including engines.
So many external factors killed the Edsel. Some argue the Russian Sputnik had a role there.
I think part of the failure of the Edsel was the hype. The press had been teased for months about the new and highly exotic “E car.” The E car really had only one geegaw that a regular Ford had, the “Teletouch” gear selector that rarely worked.
The public was not impressed by the Edsel because it really was nothing out of the ordinary.
I remember as a child my father coming home one evening having seen a new ’57 Edsel downtown, and laughing that someone had, or had suggested, hanging a roll of toilet paper beside that unique grille…there was a sense of hilarity at how ridiculous it looked overall. My memory is that the car was seen pretty much as a (bad) joke from day one.
I have read that the public reaction was “it’s just another car” because the hype created excitement for something really new.
And the Edsel was introduced a few weeks earlier than anything else so there was a perception that it was a ’57 however it was a ’58 with ’58 price increases and people were not informed that all the ’58 cars were priced higher.
The styling was polarizing but many people and car magazines liked it, some calling it the best looking ’58 car. A very low bar to be sure but still. Pontiac certainly by the late 60’s was looking like an Edsel but maybe it was too much too soon.
All the factors created a slow start and it was only in calendar year ’58 that the jokes started to come, even mocking the name. .
Went to the Old Car Manual Project to look at the ’60 Edsel brochure: “New – Nifty – Thrifty.”
It’s really striking to me how many full-sized nameplates across the industry were trying to offer some kind of “economy” model in that ’59-61-ish period (detuned Poncho V8s, etc.), with laughably miniscule improvements in MPG.
The kind of subject Aaron probably has a handle on…
The 1960 Edsel is NOT “just a tarted up Ford.” It shares all glass (model for model) and most sheet metal with its Galaxie and Fairlane cousins, but it is its own car. Ford has no interior hood release. The Edsel has one. The Edsel has a longer wheelbase, an entirely different rear suspension. You can not use 60 Ford front wheel alignment specs for a 1960 Edsel. Because Edsel was the middle letter of the MEL division of FoMoCo it shares dash elements with some Mercurys. It does not share those with Fords. You could not go to a Ford dealership for parts. Only Mercury dealers had the part number books for Edsels. Ford dealers would chase you away.
(I was there, with my father, who bought my 1960 Edsel new, when I was age 5).
There were three cousin cars that year: the Edsel, the Ford, and the Canadian Meteor. They all share sheet metal and glass. In some ways the 1960 Edsel is closer to that Meteor (stand alone marque sold in Mercury dealerships) in other ways it is closer to the Ford (same engines, painted different colors). Of the three, the Edsel has the most unique parts.
The Edsel has a longer wheelbase,
Created by the very simple trick of moving the rear axle back on the leaf springs enough to claim it being 120″ instead of 119″.Did they move it 0.51″? This was a commonly done trick by both Ford and Chrysler back then on their cars with rear leaf springs. Has anyone actually ever measured the wheelbase of a 1960 Edsel?
an entirely different rear suspension.
Clearly they are essentially the same, except for the axle (possibly) being moved back on the springs a hair. Exactly how are they “entirely different”?
In some ways the 1960 Edsel is closer to that (Canadian) Meteor
Interesting that you mention the Canadian Meteor, as its wheelbase is listed at 119″, like the US Ford.
What is blatantly obvious to all (except perhaps a few) is that the 1960 Edsel is essentially just a 1960 Ford with some specific styling and interior changes. Oh right; the interior hood release. But that hardly makes it “its own car”. So yes, it really is “just a tarted up Ford.”
Take a picture of the rear wheel well of a 1960 Edsel and a 1960 Ford and put them side by side.
The tire is in a different position within that arch on the two cars. The wheelbase difference is real.
Alas, though I own both a 1960 Edsel and a 1960 Meteor, neither are at my house today to take and submit rear suspension photos. The Meteor rear is the same as the Ford. The Edsel is an entirely different design. It isn’t just moving parts a little.
These are two well known ways that auction authenticators use to tell a real Edsel1960 convertible (which is worth $$$) from a counterfeited 1960 Ford with Edsel trim and a faked VIN plate.
Here’s two pictures of the Ford and Edsel rear suspensions. The suspensions are essentially identical, except as we both noted, the axle is mounted one inch further to the rear on the Edsel. But otherwise they very much look to be the same, certainly not “an entirely different rear suspension”.