Photos from the Cohort by tbm3fan.
There are few things more annoying than getting ready for a party and upon arrival, seeing that the whole idea was a blunder. Particularly after spending some cash on a new wardrobe, hairdo, and make-up. After going through the trouble, it’s irksome to arrive expecting fun and excitement only to see the whole affair fizzle out.
More than irksome, it’s downright disappointing.
It’s no mystery that US carmakers were expecting a sales party for the year 1958, at least when their ’58 lineups were conceived. Most models were the peak of 1950s excess; all slathered in copious amounts of chrome and space-age goodies. The ’58 Ford is no different, adding a good deal of excess and Thunderbird cues to the 1957 bodies.
In all, the 1958 generation followed Detroit’s favorite motto: “More is more!” And who doesn’t like more?
So, when the ’58 recession hit, everyone took a tumble and the sales party fizzled all at once. If cars had a personality, amidst the turmoil, the ’58 Ford would have been glad that none in the family were looking at him, but rather at his recently arrived Edsel cousin.
- Don’t look at me! My new haircut was just a dime against cousin Edsel’s! Go and take it out on him!
Ford’s VP of Design George Walker referred to ’58 as the “hate cars year.” Besides collapsing sales, the Insolent Chariots book also appeared, poking fun at Detroit’s ways. Meanwhile, carmaker’s obsession with fins and space-age themes were becoming the butt of jokes in the media.
Other than the obvious economic downturn, there was something in the air signaling a more sober future.
Admittedly the ’58 Ford was not quite as egregious as some others, but that didn’t keep it from feeling the pain at the cash register; with the Custom and Custom 300 lines falling a 37% for the year.
The passing of time hasn’t been kind to Detroit’s 1958 generation, and to this day, they pretty much remain less favored than the models before or after. Their excessive nature has much to do with that, a factor that’s hard to overlook.
Indeed, the ’58 Ford is not as clean as the ’57, while the following ’59 looks more cohesive. Regardless, in this odd -yet joyful- color combination, this old ’58 Custom 300 looks ready to attend a daytime party. Wearing the wrong Hawaiian shirt, and some ill-fitting clothes, but still ready for a good time. Should it go to one, it will most likely be far more fun than the 1958 one.
Related CC reading:
i always loved the 58 . dad bought the one off my aunt ,was a 2 door hardtop , had it for 10 years , not much trouble other than the built in rust collectors , headlamp cowls being the main one , there was even a aftermarket repair kit for the very common problem. hand painted after the body work and sold it 2 years later for 2x what he paid for it . i been always on the lookout for one in my travels for a descent price . thank you for this post .
Could the 300 sales have collapse in part because it had the carryover body with just a major front end facelift? It didn’t share the swoopy body of the Fairlane.
How were the Fairlane sales in ’58?
recession year – pretty much all swooned except outlier Rambler
My first car was 59 Ford, and it was terrible. I only paid $100, so I got what I paid for. Lasted a year and I splurged on a 1963 Biscayne for $400. Just a lot nicer car. So I’m prejudiced against all Y-block Fords, But as far as appearance goes I really dislike the 1958 Impala. I read that Chevy rushed it to production to counteract the long and low 1957 Ford. They redeemed themselves with the 1959 Impala with those laid down fins and cat eye tail lights.
>>I read that Chevy rushed it to production to counteract the long and low 1957 Ford. <<
Plymouth
and I agree on the 1959 Ford, I think they were the least comely of Ford model years, except 1960
This example (and the recently issued license plate) suggests a project that didn’t reach completion. The front end chrome work looks excellent (that’s a place that can trip one up on parts availability and rechroming costs). Depending on the seller’s asking price and how hard it is to source or install those trim pieces on the rear doors, this could be an opportunity for someone who likes this year and model.
I actually find the 58 Ford toned down compared to the 57 and 59s sandwiching it, to the point it’s kind of anonymous. Mercury, Edsel, Lincoln the Tbird, all of GM including the newly bedazzled Corvette and all of Chrysler’s forward lookers fall under the umbrella of excess but the Ford, looks stodgy compared to all of them, even Rambler looks more expressive in its designs
I’ve always liked the ’58s, the twin oval tailights looked cool and different than the usual roundies. My uncle had a ’58 Country Sedan that was a great family hauler, and kept it until it was replaced by a ’62 Chev wagon. To my young eyes the gray/white/red ’58 was much richer looking and better than our ’57.
Fords were still a sensible size then but in ’60 the “bigger is better” trend really took hold, they were super wide and low and I hated the styling that year. At least they got better looking again in ’61.
The recession of 1958 forced the Big 3 to realize they’d better get on the stick about building economy cars. All of a sudden, people wanted Nash Rambler Americans, family cars from Europe were getting some attention, especially on the coasts, and even the Japanese manufacturers were exporting a few cars.
I don’t really know the timeline for the development of the 1960 US compacts. Perhaps they were already in pre-development when the 1958 recession hit, but maybe not seriously. I think that were it not for that recession, we might not have gotten the Corvair, Falcon, and Valiant until several years after 1960.
More ’58 Hate! I happen to like these a lot. The good looks of the ’57 with a nicer front end. The quad oval taillights are not as “pure” as the single round ’57 taillights, but they’re interesting and they grow on you.
The car shown is a Custom 300, not a “Custom”.
If you want to see what a nice one looks like, here’s mine:
I thought I had updated the post’s title, but obviously, I didn’t. It’s fixed now to Custom 300.
Stephen your car is glorious .
I too prefer the ’57 Fords but who cares .
-Nate
Thanks for that–it was a great find. One family owned (besides me).
Here’s the instrument panel design, which I also like:
This photo brought back fond memories…. the car I learned how to drive in around 1975 starting on gravel roads around the family farm. A hand-me-down by the time I got it, the Upper Midwest climate and road salt had done quite a number on it, including the floorboards (I learned not to move the rubber floor mats). On rainy days water would come through the front fenders near the headlight cowls as I watched the rhythm of the vacuum-powered windshield wipers strain to do their job between manual transmission gear shifts. Somehow the spark plug covers were never fully protected (probably cracked or missing) and also a hazard on rainy days with frequent drownings (the car and me) going through large puddles. Thank you for sharing. If only my current Audi Q7 knew of such humble origins as a manual choke and CONELRAD radio settings…
Ha ha it took me a bit to even figure out it was a Custom given all the variations back then compared to the late 60’s.
More than the others, Ford should have just left well enough alone for ’58. They had everything right in ’57 except quality. Each brand was distinctive and all were attractive. Lincoln was FINALLY competitive with Cadillac in size and impressiveness. Instead they ruined Lincoln, added the redundant and horrible Edsel, and messed up the Ford somewhat. Only Mercury was left pretty much unchanged.
’58 Ford ribbed the roof because ’57 was weak
My dad, a small town Wisconsin lawyer, bought a new ’58 Ford. Yellow and white. His first new car. I was four years old. I really liked it – that new car smell! – but the more I rode in it the more I thought there was something wrong with it. It wasn’t as smooth as the cars my friends’ dads drove. I realized why a couple years later – dad’s car was a stickshift, and all those other cars were automatics.
This is my first gearhead memory.
It would be interesting to compare Fairlane production/sales with those of the Custom/Custom 300. We all lament how the 55-57 Chevy was such a perfect size, then was replaced by the monsters of 58 and 59-60. But Ford kept selling a 116 inch wheelbase Ford sedan in the Custom/Custom 300. It evidently did not sell well enough to stay on the menu after 1958, when Ford made all of its cars on the longer wheelbase and the Fairlane body.
For what it’s worth, the 116″ wb ’57 Ford (which included all wagons) outsold the 118″ Fords 869k to 638k; in ’58 it was 527k to 482k. But the reality was that if you wanted a nicer trimmed Ford, you had to take a Fairlane; if you wanted a cheaper one, it was the Custom/300. I really doubt that 2″ of wheelbase made much actual difference in buying decisions. It’s not an apples-to-apples comparison. Even the most expensive Ford, the Country Squire (except for the Skyliner), had the 116″ wb.
The 1959 Ford body was quite obviously based on the ’57-’58 Mercury body, as we’ve discussed several times before. But it did have the 118″ Ford frame/wheelbase.
The book, The Insolent Chariots, was a spot on critique of Detroit’s obsession with over the top design. Each year, successive versions of their cars became longer, lower, wider, “chrome-ier,” “fin- ier,” and thirstier than the year before.
The Industry would say that they just build what the customer wants, but the Industry builds what they think they can sell. Of course, the Industry creates much of the demand for new models, and the consumer can only buy what is offered on the market. Detroit usually did okay with this arrangement until circumstances led to a consumer revolt.
Still, late ’50’s to early 60’s designs are delightful looking today in all their excess. However, these designs weren’t always loved even when they were new. I know that my Dad did not like his new ’59 Impala two door hardtop. He found the seats to be too low, and the bubble top rear window made the rear passengers uncomfortable as they broiled in the hot sun. He only kept it for four years before he bought a ’64 Tempest wagon. Car design design back then was like the weather, wait a day or two, and it’ll change!
Well stated! We can appreciate the outlandish design now. Because it is very safely in the past.
My mom’s ‘cuz” drove a gray “58 Ford” until “66”. she had a garage so the car stayed very nice. Inside was “red/gray”.
She got a “65 Rambler Classic”, (low miles) to replace it.
That garage kept it soo. so nice too.
As i recall, she had that till about “74’.
Jose hits the nails on the head in that whatever Detroit produced, people bought because there was no choice other than these vehicles. Imports changed that. Competition from other thinkers is an another way to express this. Have we noticed that today’s sedans, SUV’s and crossovers are repeating the trend of the 1950’s with the exception that people want the vehicles, albeit that the design choices are so repetitive. What is interesting about today’s SUV and crossovers is that they create similar room to the vehicles of the 1930’s and 1940’s with many of them offering height so that we do not have to sit in our cars looking at the tail ahead of us, but rather, enjoy the scenery. Okay, some of the scenery is not worth mentioning! My wife and I enjoy motoring in the GMC Acadia because we can see something.
I’ll also say that this 1958 Ford sedan is a really rare find. It’s easier today to find a 1958 Edsel than a Ford sedan even though 16x more Fords were built than Edsels in ’58!
Rare but not valued very high. I’ll be in the area tomorrow to pick something up and will take a closer look as to a price on the For Sale sign. If I hadn’t over shot where I was going I would have never seen this. Basically on an industrial type street with lots of automotive shops of one type or another so not exactly a lot of people traffic.
As a small child I always thought the front of the ‘58 Ford looked like a catfish, and I have not been able to unsee that similarity since. Not a bad thing, I had always enjoyed catching them and eating them ( the catfish, not the Ford).
Catfish? How about the ’58 Packard Hawk?
Yes, definitely a catfish. One of those giant Mississippi River catfish that eat dogs and small children! (Or so Mom told us if we got more than ten feet from the bank of the river or pond)
Although I haven’t read The Insolent Chariots Jose refers to above (must find a copy), I gather it was pointing out much of what what non-Americans were saying about American cars back then: too big, too flashy/vulgar, too thirsty, overpowered, underbraked…..
In an age which was into Googie everything, it was sort of ‘the sky’s the limit’ when it came to design. That’s why I love cars from this era, for the sheer overabundance of exuberant creativity – they’re like The Jetsons on wheels, viewed through a kaleidoscope.
It must’ve been fascinating for a kid growing up in the US back then.
In an era with little widespread consciousness of the need to look after our environment, you could get away with that. In a country as prosperous as the US was back then, it seems people would buy anything, no matter how outlandish it seemed to non-Americans. It was amazing to us that you folk thought buying a new car every year or two was ‘normal’. We’d run it until it broke.
The ‘prosperity gap’ sems to have narrowed these days. But we sorely need to recapture that free-spirit sense of imagination in design nowadays. Or is the fault in management, that so much of today’s roadscape is boring?
The prosperity gap has not narrowed but expanded. Back then people bought what they could afford. If you couldn’t afford a good car you’d buy a shitbox. Nowadays people finance what they can’t or shouldn’t. Real shit boxes are not seen anymore.
I was thinking of the difference between my country and the US, maybe I used the wrong term. Once it was almost a mark of shame to have to finance something; now folk are surprised if you pay cash.
Same over here nobody used finance there were many restrictions, the old man told of people who paid for new cars with money that smelled of dirt like it had been buried, cash customers who ordered and bought new Chevrolets and Vauxhalls.
Count me in as one more person who prefers the 58 over the 57 and 59. But then I also think the 60 full size Ford (particularly the Galaxy Skyliner) is one of the best styling efforts by Ford – ever:)
Always liked the 58 over the 57 Ford and I’ve never appreciated the 59. 58 was the first year for Fords FE engine which was 332 c. i. The 58 always appeared more taut and athletic than the 57. The Thunder Bird grill and bumper design fitted the 58 well I think. Perception is reality though.
The interiors of these full size Fords always looked cheap thanks to the exposed steering columns and the gear shift controller that were not covered up until the 63`s were released. A cost cutting measure? It just looks ugly.
Loved the Keats reference that’s rarely seen these days. As for the ’58 Ford, it’s hard to see how Henry II thought they;d maintain the sales edge over Chevy enjoyed in ’57. with this heap – from my neck of the woods in the Great Lakes rust belt – these cars rapidly biodegraded from the roads by the earliy 60s. If it wasn’t rust, they failed on any number of mechanical/electrical/build problems. Maybe they thought the Edsel would deliver redemption….