Constantine Hannaher, who was at the Baltimore CC Meet-up and posted a raft of great pictures from the event that I haven’t gotten to yet, also just posted this fine ’61 Chevy Parkwood wagon. AS was common at the time,Chevrolet gave their station wagons different names than the rest of their car lines/models, but the last year for that was 1961 (until they came back in 1969, oddly enough. That means in 1962, this Parkwood would be just a Bel Air wagon.
Back then, I found it a bit confusing, especially since the wagon names seemed to change over the years (but then the sedans did too, to some extent). What was really confusing though was that in the last few years of this (1959-1960), the Impala-level wagons had different names, depending on whether they were 9 passenger (Kingswood) or 6 passenger (Nomad). At least the Kingswood got axed for 1961, and all the Impala-trim wagons were now Nomads.
Back to this Parkwood:
There were no less than four distinct (different model number) Parkwoods in ’61: 6 cyl and V8 six passenger versions, and 6 cyl and V8 nine passenger versions. I can’t tell whether this one is a 6 or 9 passenger version nor is it possible to tell if it’s a six or V8, as the V8 wagons didn’t get the requisite V emblem on the rear end. Odd. Usually Chevy was very good about letting us know if there was a V8 under the hood, as if we couldn’t tell by the exhaust sound anyway.
Chevy usually splurged on slightly bigger tires for the wagons and convertibles (8.00×14 instead of 7.50×14), but I don’t think they were offering wider (6″ wide) wheels yet. I know on later years they used 6″ wheels, but then they also offered even bigger tires a optional. I’m pretty sure the wheels were still 5″ wide in ’61. But I can’t tell whether the ones on this wagon has later 6″ wide wheels, or they might a wee bit wider yet. I’m going to guess they are 7″ wide, as the offset to the hubcaps seems deeper than what I remember. But I could be wrong…
In any case, it’s a subtle but effective way to make this fine old wagon look a bit less under-tired/wheeled, as the stock ones are prone to being.
Jim Cavanaugh’s finally fell in love with a ’61 Impala here
And Dave Skinner wrote up a lower trim ’61 Brookwood wagon here
About the axing of the specific wagon names after 1961 – not really true. Chevy was still using Brookwood, Townsman, and Kingswood for the big wagons in the 1970s.
The names Kingswood Estate, Kingswood, Townsman, and Brookwood (from fanciest to plainest) were all instituted at the start of the 1969 model year.
Why on Earth do I know that?
I think Chevrolet became more aggressive with their TV marketing with the ’69 model year. Remember this one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wn6rKO35qE
I’d read that for a number of years before (maybe the mid-60s to 1968) a lot of Chevy’s ad budget went to different projects with little accountability.
Here’s a clever spot promoting the new locking steering column/shifter.
What’s with “CA-price” in the ad you linked to? (gotta love the music from late-’60s commercials though).
Speaking of the music, if you read the comments there’s a lively debate over whether the singers were The Fifth Dimension, or a sound-alike group of studio musicians.
Also notice that there’s no Corvair to be seen in the spot. By this time, Chevy was obviously winding down production in its final model year.
The guy arguing it’s studio musicians seems to know of whence he speaks, knowing the ad agency and all. OTOH, it’s definitely the 5th Dimension in another Chevy commercial, so maybe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEZpbyyxQXo
The Corvair wasn’t advertised in any way after 1967. You couldn’t even get a brochure at the dealer by 1969; you had to request it by mail.
It was the 5th. Dimension.
Glen Campbell also did a lot of ads for Chevy around that time.
Chevy’s advertising budget was huge back then, no need to cut corners. Plus, I am sure the 5th. Dimension’s agents would have had a cow if Chevy was trying to fake them.
And to think they re-used the Nomad name for the lower trim Chevelle wagon later.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-capsule-1969-chevelle-nomad-wagon-more-name-debasement-and-confusion/
Yep. My folks had a 1970 (1969?) Kingswood. Thought I was dreaming it till you pointed it out. They drove from Wisconsin to Southern Mexico in 1969 in it! They didn’t even know that it was a big deal til they tried it. It worked out OK, but they flew everywhere afterwards.
The shot from the front reminds me just how much I loved the band of tinting across the top of the glass, and how at one time it was a “luxury” and denoted usually that the car was a higher level of trim. Of course, it was ins some ways a needed option as the greenhouses were so much larger, and the windscreens (as in this Chev) soared upward almost into the roofline. I miss this type of visibility, especially with modern cars as some streetlights are almost impossible to see without craning your neck under the front edge of the windscreen. Visibility on most cars is awful now, contrasting well with the beautiful wagon here. Just lovely.
Chevy got it just right with these. Love the color and the wheels too. One of my favorite wagons!
+1
Somewhere, I have stashed some 35mm slides of my Aunt’s 61 Parkwood. That was her first wagon, and last car with a three on the tree. I remember questioning why it said Parkwood on the outside, but the center of the steering wheel said Bel Air.
Took a camping trip to the UP with my aunt and mom in 64, with an Apache camping trailer in tow. Shortly after passing Grand Rapids, a tire went flat. Total complement in the car was two adult women and my 11 year old self. One guess who changed the tire while the other two sat and watched.
Once the flat had been replaced, I shared the back seat with the tire as we went off in search of a gas station to get the puncture plugged.
With the side excursion with the tire resolved, we were running late as we flew across the bridge. Mom was navigating and noticed a road shown on the map that went almost directly from St Ignace to Brimley, where we were to camp that night, cutting miles off the drive vs going the intended route toward Sault Saint Marie.
Surprise. Instead of a nice paved highway, it was a gravel road. Undaunted, my aunt put the spurs to the Chevy. Charging down a hill, we saw a wooden bridge over a creek. The bridge looked flat. It wasn’t flat, it was arched. Chevy and Apache both went airborne. We landed with no apparent ill effects, so pressed on to Brimley.
Funny thing. Over the last year my aunt had that car, it developed a howl in the diff, so it yielded to a 65 Fury III wagon.
I agree that the lack of a rear emblem on wagons creates a conundrum. However, the engine is identified on the front emblem. Gold V at the bottom, like this wagon has, indicates 283. Crossed flags mean 348. A plain emblem denotes a six.
Always liked these subtle engine callouts. Pretty popular from the mid-’50’s to the mid-’70’s among most brands. Ford had the Thunderbird on the fender to denote optional V-8’s and Chrysler products had various “V’s”, “Commando” emblems and CID callout hood ornaments.
What I find interesting is that all the manufacturers luxury brands (Cadillac, Lincoln, Imperial) never had any special callouts. Probably because for most years they only offered one engine.
I grew up to some extent in a ’61 Parkwood, my folk’s first wagon. White with blue interior, 9-passenger, 283 with Powerglide. Loved sitting in the rearmost seat, facing backwards. They replaced it with a ’68 Country Squire, and the dual facing rear seats weren’t nearly as comfortable… though perhaps I’d just outgrown the way-back.
A very attractive wagon in probably my second-favorite 61 Chevy color. Uhhh, am I the only one who sees wheels painted a slightly different color than the rest of the car?
Ford did the same on wagon names with Ranch Wagon, Country Sedan and Country Squire. Speaking of Ford, I just now noticed how much the front of the 1963 Galaxie line resembles certain aspects of the front of the 61 Chevy. Although Ford did not adopt the grille and lights across the very top, the rest of the design looks more than a little similar, from the grille texture with the big central badge to the bumper with the slightly raised center section.
The wheels do appear to be a different shade than the car. I wish turquoise cars would be made again.
My ’60s car is turquoise . . . except it really needs a new paint job. Not much paint left on the roof. Sigh.
————————————
That Chevy wagon sure is nice. It ought to be illegal not to like that Parkwood. Luv those hubcaps, too.
You’re not the only one who noticed Jim, but you always have an eye for color (perhaps better than anyone here when it comes to original paint colors on cars).
Those rims look to be the color of this other beauty of a ’61 Chevy you wrote up a while back…
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1961-chevrolet-impala-sport-coupe-wherein-the-author-meets-his-nemesis-and-finds-love/
Oops… Looks like Paul already provided a link to your article. :o)
> Ford did the same on wagon names with Ranch Wagon, Country Sedan and Country Squire
and Plymouth too – their full-sized wagons were called Suburban right up to the last one in 1977. “Suburban” was once a generic description used by many manufacturers for wagons built off of sedan or pickup truck platforms and bodies, but by ’77 only two brands were still using that term. Some smart person at General Motors was watching the situation carefully, and when ten years went by with nobody but Chevrolet using that moniker GM trademarked “Suburban” and now has exclusive rights to the name. Willys was able to procure exclusive rights to “Jeep” for the same reason even though Ford used to build jeeps too, something FCA is very thankful for today.
My eyes must be losing it, as I don’t see them being a different color. I strongly suspect the wheels were repainted to match the body, since they are wider (at least the rear one is) than stock, and the body looks like it might be original, or an older repaint. And that the match may not be quite perfect, but not a whole different color. Here’s a closer look:
Not to mention lighting angle could be at play here with a cylindrical shape vs a flatter shape…. you may be right here. The older vs newer paint thing you cited is more likely the cause though.
The effect shows up more in the other shot. It could certainly be an illusion from lighting. Or perhaps the wheels were painted from a different paiint batch, or . . .
I love that Demon (and the Cutlass) photo-bombing the first shot. The lighting for those first two photos is nice, sometimes a non sunny day is best for shooting cars. The sun creates glare and shadows that are hard to work around.
Suburban America’s desired and coveted Status Symbol of the 1950’s and 1960’s AKA Ford Country Sedan.
I can’t even think of another car with the word Sedan in the name, yet the only car with Sedan in the name isn’t even a sedan. What a confusing world we live in …
’48-’50 Packard Station Sedan, a wagon, and again in 1957 with the Clipper Country Sedan (which was neither a sedan nor really a Packard).
As for cars with “sedan” in the name, Sedan de Ville.
Holden used to call their wagons “Station Sedan” in the fifties. Even said so on them.
Strangely enough, I find this wagon better looking than the notchbacks from the same model year. IMHO, the design looks cleaner & less cluttered this way; even the gullwing-y thing on the tail end, which is one of my problems with ’59-’61 Chevys, looks just like a part of the decorative crease that encircles the entire body, much like on the Corvair, but more fancy – not some kind of a “duck tail” style spoiler, or a vestige of the shaved off tailfins – which it really is, and the rear styling on the sedans & coupes makes it all too obvious. I also prefer quad taillights of the lower trim levels to the six tail lamps on the Impala. Single-tone paint scheme and dog dish hubcaps just accentuate the clean, unadorned look. And the Brookwood from Dave Skinner’s post seems too much of a plain Jane in comparison. Without the chrome molding, the crease on the body sides looks out of place to me.
Pontiac had Safari well into the ’70’s. Buick had the Estate Wagon. Olds had the Vista Cruiser. Rambler used the Cross Country moniker long before Volvo adopted it!
We had a ’61 Brookwood, hearing aid beige, 283 PG bought used in ’63. The ’65 that replaced it had 327 and AC, we towed a 20 ft. Shasta travel trailer with this wagon, made the annual Disneyland trip from Portland much nicer.
My family had a 58 Brookwood (an uncle owned a 58 Nomad), that was a sort of pastel green and white two-tone. My mother grew to hate that car so much that she would forbid my father to ever buy another Chevy as the family car.
Mon hated the Brookwood. She liked the well equipped ’65 Impala wagon, though.
My Dad’s ‘66 Impala (hardtop fastback coupe) had those wheel covers. I always liked them.
1961 was also the 1st model year when all the full-sized Chevy wagons were 4 doors. In 1960 you could still get a Brookwood with 2 or 4 doors and with 6 or V8 engine.
Ford would offer a 2 or 4 door full-sized wagon ( the Ranch Wagon) for 1961 after which it was dropped.
Plymouth was like Ford in that 1961 would be the last year for the two-door wagon.
And the 61 Plymouth 2 door wagon doesn’t look very happy about it!
A 1961 Plymouth Fury would have made a fine Christine.
I’m especially amused at wagons getting a different name just because they had a 3rd row seat. Even though that didn’t last much beyond 1960, the “9 passenger” wagons were still considered a separate model from the “6 passenger” versions of the same car for many years to come in Detroit. I don’t know when this practice stopped, but by the time of the Taurus wagon the 3rd row seat was just another option.
I’m trying to think what the last time a wagon had a completely separate model name from the sedans or other body styles. I guess it still occurs on some lifted AWD models like the Outback.
I believe that the last time a wagon had a completely separate model name from the sedans was the 1990 Buick Estate Wagon. Buick had combined their previous Electra Estate Wagon and LeSabre Estate Wagon lines into a single station wagon model that that year. The following year they replaced the Estate Wagon with the Roadmaster Estate Wagon. (The only model bearing the Roadmaster name that year.) It was joined by the Roadmaster sedan for the 1992 model year.
Likewise the Pontiac Safari which, as with the Estate Wagon, lasted several years after the Parisienne sedans were discontinued. However, wagons that no longer have a sedan (or other body style) counterpart are a different thing than those that do but use a completely different name. The Pontiac was originally known as Grand Safari though, a name not shared with the Bonneville sedan it was based on.
Grand Safari and Safari were the designations for the clamshell-tailgate Pontiac wagons of 1971-76. From 1959 to 1970, if you wanted a full-size wagon you had your choice of Bonneville or Catalina, joined by the in-between Executive wagon in 1967. Some of these wagons had Safari added to their names (on the tailgate) during some of those model years; for example, my family’s ’67 Executive wagon was an Executive Safari but the Bonneville and Catalina wagons that year were not Safaris; in 1965 both the Bonneville and Catalina wagons were Safaris.
After GM/Chevrolet denied that unique names for wagons mattered one could also buy in America:
Buick Sport Wagon
Mercury Montego Villager
Mercury Cougar Villager
Mercury Colony Park
Ford Fairmont Squire
Ford Pinto Squire
Chrysler Town & Country
And here is a great, but very rare, wagon name: Chevrolet Yeoman.
Don’t forget the 1976-only Chevy Vega Nomad! (c:
I didn’t notice if anyone else mentioned this, but all Vega wagons had a unique name, Kammback.
Not every Town & Country is a wagon; there was also a T&C convertible from 1983-’86.
Not only that, from the time production restarted after WWII until 1950, the T&C was offered as a sedan, hardtop and convertible (however, not all of those body styles were offered in all of those years). Then a hardtop and convertible T&C appeared for the 1968 and 1969 model years.
And finally, I could see one maintaining that the 1990 – 2016 T&Cs were not true wagons, but instead vans. Personally, I was a bit disappointed when FiatChrysler abandoned the name in favor of “Pacifica.”
Technically “Ford Pinto Squire” is the same as “Audi A6 Avant”. It should only count for the last call if the name of the car it’s based on doesn’t even appear in the name of the wagon.
Have we come up with a non-American example yet, or is this a distinctively American thing?
I mentioned the Subaru Outback earlier which is a wagon version of the Legacy, albeit with more alterations than what Chevy had between sedan and wagon. Some other lifted wagons were also like this, though all the others I can think of were also available in non-lifted versions that had the same name as the corresponding sedan.
The Outback is an interesting example. It was first sold as the “Legscy Outback,” then spun off as its own model to appeal to SUV buyers. It’s been written that this move saved Subaru, or at least its North American sales organization, which saw sales of its sedans and wagons tank when buyers started switching to SUVs en masse during the 1990s.
Curiously and perhaps confusingly, Subaru continued offering a Legacy wagon – sans raised body and lower cladding – until 2007 (at least in the US; I’m not sure about other markets). And another curiosity was an Outback sedan, which was offered for a year or two in the late 1990s.
But perhaps Subaru knew what it was doing and was playing the long game, because the Outback was eventually reclassified as a “truck,” making it easier for Subaru to meet the convoluted mess of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rules in the US.
It was never called a Legacy Outback in the country from whence that second name came, a legacy of the fact that the main veterans support organisation here is Legacy, and Subaru would be taking a liberty to call a car a Legacy, so they called it a Liberty.
They probably called the plastic-clad one a Subaru Outback from launch because they had a headache.
I’m a diehard **Ford** wagon guy, but that’s a very fetching Chevy wagon today. Agreed at how the day’s stock wheel/tire combos look puny now, and that this wagon’s seem happily beefier.
Two-and-a-half-minute singin’ and swinging’ Dinah Shore commercial here; the ’61 Biscayne seems close to our color, but perhaps more bluish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef9nv76UuFQ
Love the styling of the 61 Chevys, in my opinion the best of the 59-64 model years, which all used the same underpinnings.
The ’61 is definitely one of my favorite Chevys. The only GM car that bested it was the Pontiac.
Agree with 210delray.
(and this coming from a “Mopar Man” for this time period!)
That ’61 has the highly sought after ‘wagon wheels’, extra wide stock steel wheels with a lot of offset. Not noticeable on the higher trim models, full wheel covers hide them. They are also used on cars equipped with the 409.
Those wheels go a long way to getting the Chevy to look more like a Wide-Track Pontiac.
I’ve looked at the wheels closely with a zoom in, and I’m pretty sure the front is likely the stock 6″ wide wheel, but the rear is a wider one, probably a 7″. There’s a decided difference in the two “drops”, and the rear one just looks too wide for the stock wheel.
Sharp eyes, Paul!
After several “zoom ins” in my i-phone, wearing my strongest magnification reading glasses, I so agree with your hypothesis.
(I’m enjoying my early retirement; I have nothing else better to do).
🙂
Good catch! ‘Wagon Wheels’ were 14 X 6, maybe the rears are aftermarket.
Here’s more on the subject:
http://www.southeastchevyparts.com/1955-1964-Original-Chevy-Wheel-Identification-_b_22.html
Interesting link! I’m looking at my original photograph, and my contribution to this discussion is that the two drops on the rear wheel are much more similar in width than on the front wheel. Also, nubs (front) vs. no nubs (rear). What is the possibility that the rear wheel is still 6″ but the late-1963 to 1964 style?
having spent some time looking at these closely, I’m convinced the rears are wider. Makes sense that the rears are a bit different in or der to also be wider. If it were the stock 6′ wide wheels, they fronts and rears would undoubtedly look the same, eh?
it’s quite common to put on a slightly wider rear wheel, as it gives an understated bit of a muscular look.
My recycling yard (used to be called “junk yard”) friend often told me that the “Wagon Wheels” were highly sought after by those who knew better.
In the ’50s, both wagons and hardtops always got special names. Nobody ever gave a unique name to a plain four-door sedan. (With the accidental exception of Dodge’s “Meadowbrook Special” in ’53.)
This seems backwards in terms of marketing. Hardtops and (all-steel) wagons were hot sellers as soon as they were introduced. Sedans were the group that should have needed help from special names and slogans.
I always thought Kingswood was strictly a Holden name; didn’t know it was used in the US as well.
Holden had a habit of dusting off old GM names from other countries, after they went through their Aboriginal naming phase. Sunbird (Torana 4), Starfire (engine)…
Okay, it’s in Park, but where’s the Wood? Should have called it the NoWood!