posted at the Cohort by Fran Dusk
It’s hard not to stop at a 1960 Edsel when cruising the Cohort. We’ve seen a few others before, but this will be the first two-door sedan. What a come down, in just two short years, from the gaudy and ambitious 1958 Citation, with its big Mercury body, to this 1960 Ford with a silly rear end and a new front grille. No wonder all of 777 of these two-door sedans were ever sold.
Before we commiserate some more with this Edsel, let’s just quickly note that in addition to the many other changes they made to the ’61 Ford, the rear window on these sedans was changed, making them steeper and ending sooner on the rear deck.
It’s a somewhat curious change to make after only one year, given that the roof otherwise didn’t change.
Back to the Edsel. What can one say about it, other than it’s being silly, affected and desperate.
For a moment I thought maybe the taillight lenses were interchangeable with those on the ’60 Comet, which was of course originally intended to be an Edsel. But they’re longer and pointier. Edsels had their odd front ends in 1958, and now it was the odd rear ends in 1960. The 1959 was pretty tame both front and back.
Actually the front end changes are more involved than just a new grille, as the hood had to be changed too. In any case, it’s a pretty modest effort, something of a watered-down 1959 Pontiac front end.
Now if only the hood were open so we could see if this one is sporting the base 223 CID six. Wouldn’t that be sweet?
Where are those taillights from? It seems familiar but I couldn’t find it in a half-assed search.
I can live with the taillights, however I’m not fond of how using them cut the trunk opening width by about a foot. And it couldn’t have have been cheap to retool just to build a very few of these 60s.
The tail lights are strongly reminiscent of Eugene Krabs of SpongeBob SquarePants fame
Yes! Thanks! That was driving me crazy. It’s Mr. Krabs in the metal!
The trunk cut was already determined by the droopy horizontal fins on the ’60 Ford, along with the strange dropped center of the rear windshield.
Of course, for ’61 all of that was gone. They designed an entire new rear clip with a wider trunk opening, as well as a new rear window, as Paul noted.
The 1960 Edsels were such a mass of compromises, its a wonder they bothered at all. It was simply Ford trying to save face with a pale offering that they could nix as soon as the poor sales justified the action they intended to take from the outset.
On the styling, the frontal design would have made a more acceptable ’60 Ford without the Pontiac-inspired divider. For the rear, those vertical taillights conflicting with the relentlessly horizontal sculpting are a terrible mish-mash. A simple set of hockey-stick shaped taillights tucked under the horizontal fins would have harkened to the 1958 theme. On this car, the inner set should have clear lens since they’re reverse lights.
From the 1958 “E-475” 410 ci V8 to the 1960 223 ci six, quite the come down…
BTW. any pictures of that gold and white 1956 Studebaker President Classic sedan parked next to this ’60 Edsel?
Yes, I posted them, too, on the Cohort.
Decent-looking ’56 President, though the pot-metal trim has been painted silver which indicates it probably was badly pitted. Just the same, that would be a good car to improve with better trim…as long as its not loaded with bondo or has a badly-rusted frame.
My apologies for not crediting you. I suddenly remembered that I had forgotten to do so as I was falling asleep, and now you’ve reminded me to add that omission. Done!
“the inner set should have clear lens since they’re reverse lights”
Maybe, maybe not. Reverse lights were still optional on many cars at this time. From the 1960 Edsel brochure, it appears such was also the case with the featured Edsel potentially never being equipped with them as back up lights read to be optional for Edsels, also. Back up lights were part of a light convenience group.
http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/United%20States/Edsel/1960_Edsel/1960-Edsel-Full-Line-Brochure/slides/1960_Edsel-24-25.html
Similar is also found in the 1960 Edsel fact sheet also found at oldcarbrochures.com
That’s what I was thinking. Back in the day, back-up lights were optional. You’d think it’d be much cheaper to run the wiring into the inner taillights for the back-ups, but maybe it was just as cheap (and easier on the line) to slap on a ’60 Ford bumper.
Then, there’s simply the possibility that they ran out of the correct back-up lenses. This could be one of the last Edsels built, and whomever ordered it, wanted those back-up lights, so they got a ’60 Ford bumper. Could have been a dealer installation, too.
I’ve never encountered a ’60 Edsel in all the years they were used cars or in junkyards that had red lens in the inner set. Even without reverse lights, they just put clear lens in place. Changing those to red lens to be additional taillights was a customizer trick.
From the 1958 “E-475” 410 ci V8 to the 1960 223 ci six, quite the comedown…
Except the Ranger (the only ’60 Edsel) never had the big MEL engine, nor did the Pacer, its cohort on the smaller chassis. Per the wiki (as far as that goes) Ranger offered all these for all its years, the 223ci Six, the 292ci V8, and the 361ci FE V8.
The MEL V8 is listed for the larger Edsels, Citation (only built in 1958) and (for 1958 on the big chassis) Pacer.
Oddly enough the Ranger is supposed to have been trimmed by a few hundred pounds from 1958 to 1960. Okay, considering 1958 was about the premiere bloat year of the decade, that sorta makes sense.
Sidenote: Given that, would the ’60 Ranger be quicker than the ’58 Ranger, engine per engine?
Edsels were V8 only in 1958, with the Ranger having the 361 which was advertised as E-400 due to having 400 ft-lbs of torque.
http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/United%20States/Edsel/1958_Edsel/1958-Edsel-Full-Line-Folder/slides/1958_Edsel_Full_Line_Folder-14.html
The six-banger and 292 came along for ’59.
The correction is always welcome. Well, that’s what I get for trusting Wiki. At least I wasn’t doing heart surgery from it.
Hockey stick taillights? Did someone say hockey stick taillights? They happened, a year later, appropriately in the country where hockey is the state religion. The photo below is the 1961 Canadian Meteor.
Some other commenters here have said the ’60 Edsel looks like it should have been a Meteor. Another way of looking it is that the ’61 Meteor really looks like what a ’61 Edsel designed off the ’61 Ford body would have looked like — had this concept of “Edsel as the Dearborn answer to a base model Pontiac” gotten any traction.
Well, at least they got rid of the horse collar grille.
At Motorcities.org, they say that “Edsel styling for 1960 was characterized by Ford calling it simplicity and good taste in ornamentation along with great curves to the body lines, which gave the car a feeling of motion and alertness in design.” However, they announced in November 1959 that it would be the last year of the Edsel. They could have at least waited six months, to help prop up sales.
I don’t know what the draw would have been for anyone to buy one of these. They looked like a Ford, because it used the same basic body shell. The back end looked like some half baked concept design, and the front looked like last year’s Pontiac.
As a medium price car offering, it was now in a crowded field, competing against Ford’s core models themselves.
This car was killed either by the recession of 1958, or by Ford’s missteps, or perhaps both.
“This car was killed either by the recession of 1958, or by Ford’s missteps, or perhaps both”
It was primarily killed by Robert McNamara. As a practical, hard-nosed businessman, he recognized the Edsel and Continental divisions as expensive, needless debacles, even before they started selling cars in late 1957, and killed them off as soon as he had the authority and influence to do so.
If I recall correctly, there were a fair number of dealers who had signed up just to carry the Edsel franchise. Even McNamara wasn’t able to simply yank the rug out from under them by killing the Edsel during the 1959 model year. Ford did try to give those dealers a Lincoln-Mercury franchise, if possible.
If it does have the six, it’s gonna be S-L-O-W . . . A 3200 lb. ’58 Ford Custom 300 with the 223 has adequate power, even a little pep–but the added 400 lbs. of weight of the ’60 Ford/Edsel body may be too much for this engine. On the other hand, Ford sold a lot of full-size ’60s and ’61s with the 145 HP six, so maybe it’s OK?
Also, I think that’s the wrong rear bumper–from a ’60 Ford, not a ’60 Edsel. This is the correct bumper:
Good catch, I missed that ’60 Ford rear bumper.
Someone must have wanted back-up lights and couldn’t source the OEM lenses. Or maybe the OEM bumper was mangled or rusted and the ’60 Ford bumper was all they could find.
If all they needed were the lenses, they should have checked with Jay Leno. One of the more popular auto parts that are frequently recreated via 3D printing are long out-of-production taillight lenses.
I posted these on the Cohort. We saw it parked along the side of the road south of Punta Gorda, FL on Tamiami Trail. I screamed “Stop!” and my friend David thought something bad had happened, but I had never seen a 1960 Edsel in the real world before and there was no way I was going past it without closer examination. I knew it was rare just in general, but not quite 777 rare. Funny thing, that weekend we went to Ft Lauderdale and I saw a 1961 DeSoto. In traffic. Somewhere in my files are pix of it.
This happens a lot, as Florida is where retirees go, thus their cars go with them. Any local cars and coffee will usually have something that would otherwise be considered rare, but here is not such a big deal. Locally, there is a 37 Cord that is at most events, among other unusual sightings. Plus, with our temperate weather and no snow/salting, we have collector cars on the road all year. I count myself lucky to live here.
McNamara hated the Edsel, Wanted it killed before it was even released in 58. By late 59 Sales were dropping sharply. and the 60 was a half baked effort to continue. The 60 and 61 Mercury Meteors showed how Edsels for those years would have looked had sales and executive support been stronger. The Comet indeed was supposed to be an Edsel and if you look at early Comet taillight lenses they have an embossed “E” on them. Also why it took two years for it to be a true Mercury line. The economy wrecked Fomoco’s plan to create their GM style Sloan ladder. How long would Edsel have survived it his had been better received? Hmm.
The Edsel seemed like the polar opposite of the pragmatic McNamara’s pet project, the Falcon. One has to wonder how much McNamara’s hatred of the Edsel helped doom it. The whole program was half-baked from the start. Without any kind of real corporate backing to succeed, it was bound not only to fail, but fail spectacularly.
Just when you thought that you couldn’t make a 1960 Ford look any more odd, along comes an Edsel.
I think the ’60 Edsel would have looked better with the Canadian Meteor tail treatment, which would have provided some continuity from the ’59.
Weirdly enough, the 62 Comet got a butt lift that resembles that. Both are better
That’s much better. They’d have done better to sell the Canadian Meteor as the Edsel for the US market.
Ditto on the Meteor. The odd thing is that Ford was already heading in the right direction with the separate Custom and Fairlane bodies in ’57. They could have Meteorized the bigger Fairlane and left the Custom plain. Then they’d have a respectable and non-obscene second step on the hierarchy.
The one year rear glass change may have made sense. That complicated big piece of glass on the el cheapo two door sedan was probably expensive, with a high percentage of rejects.
Interesting observations on the back glass.
My hunch is that the unique glass shape had to do with a thrifty sharing of Starliner parts, tooling, trim, etc.
For ’61 it looks like the narrowed “cat walk” mandated a glass change.
Starliner had a totally different backlight.
As a former hands-on owner of Starliner (and other ’60/1 models) owner, I understand that well. I was trying to make a point about the one-year backlight pondering, and that it wasn’t just with the Tudor sedan. “Starliner-like” I should have written.
Ford in those days was ingeniously (notoriously?) frugal about using ingredients already on hand to whip up brand new recipes.
For an example, with the recent CC Japanese T-Bird post I was going to mention that the special “export” lamp appeared to be one of Ford’s clever frugal raids on the existing parts bin. The topic cooled down before I got to it.
Back to the glass change ponderings… see how even though Starliner had it’s own unique roof, etc., it appears that the bottom of the backlight was shaped to terminate in a way that would use other models’ existing components at the lower pinchweld?
Now, (thanks to the side-by-side picture) for ’61, notice that Starliner glass is different at the bottom? Most likely because the ’61s deck changed enough that there wasn’t a good way to skimp by with the ’60 backlight and trim. If there was a way, Ford probably would’ve skimped by with the ’60 glass for ’61; especially for not the hottest seller. Also note that Starliner backlight doesn’t appear to have been “forced” to change at the sides for ’61, the way the featured sedan had to.
Which brings us back to the original pondering of why the one-year back glass on the featured car? I say ditto the Starliner backlight change, it was forced by the ’61 deck redesign. There just wasn’t a decent way to utilize the ’60 back glass with the ’61’s changes at the rear deck.
Customers did not like the narrow trunk lid opening and tight space between the floor and deck of the 1960 Fords. Ford widened the trunk opening, and raised the overall deck height, to address those concerns. Those changes most likely resulted in the revisions to the rear window.
A combination of numerous customer complaints, and lackluster sales of the 1960 Fords, drove Ford to spend the money for those changes.
There are so few changes between this Edsel and the 60 Ford that the casual observer might think this is a Canadian Meteor or Monarch. Makes sense given that Ford would want to spend a little as possible on the abbreviated 60 model year for the doomed Edsel.
The ghost outline of the Ford taillight panel is the worst part, I think the weird taillights are kind of cool otherwise, but it comes off as an anonymous car used for TV commercials because of that, but I still think it looks better than a 60 Ford. It’s really striking to me how much more thorough of an effort the Comet was despite its lower cost lower profit market position, I’m not super fond of its rear end design but there are no Falcon remnants in it to be found
Actually, I have always liked the ’60 Edsel. I even prefer it to the Ford of that year. I think the one shown has had the side trim removed. I don’t ever remember seeing one with the plain sides. The sales brochure doesn’t show one either. It looks more like a ’60 Ford base model like the one my Dad owned back then.
I grew up in a town of 3500 in southern Indiana and our little town had 2 of these two doors when they were new. One was green and was owned by some people down our street. I even rode it it once. The other was a kind of beige/ yellow color and the owner installed chrome fender skirts and two rear antennas.
Someone in the next town owned a white two door hardtop which shared the Starliner roof. Years later I used to see a pale green four door sedan in that same town. I’m not sure why so many were around in our area. I don’t remember there being a dealer. I would have been 12 when they were new and knew where every car dealer in the area was.
Incidentally, I have seen several ’60 Edsels either at car shows or on the road and have never seen one yet without the back up light lenses.
I was a little young to fully take in the debut of the ’58 Edsel in fall ’57, but two years later, September 1959, I was a budding CC-er, very aware of FoMoCo’s line (as son of Ford employee).
My father finally felt he could spring for his first new car, I guess. Family of seven, and dealership choice was either a Ford Country Sedan or an Edsel wagon. All this 6-8 weeks before Edsel’s elimination announced; Dad had no idea. Parents never recalled concern about exterior styling on either, but my Mom didn’t like the “ranch-style” upholstery in the Edsel, and so we got the Ford.
Whether sedan or wagon, the ’60 Edsel’s patchwork styling-fix sure looks goofy now, but I suppose I’d be willing to give a decent survivor a good home.
BTW, I had no idea about that special rear window—you learn something new every day!
I never realized how similar these are to the 1960 Ford wagons. Even in the rear, you can practically see where the wagon taillights would sit. Are the stampings the same or just a coincidence? Even the front end is similar.
I am curious Why you chose to compare the 60 Edsel to the 61 Ford in your Post is confusing to me. Shouldn’t you have compared it to the 60 Ford?
I was pointing out how the ’61 Ford had a new rear window and other revisions from ’60, when it shared those same parts with the Edsel.
Both the DeSoto and the Edsel needn’t have been redesigned for the few months they were left in existence. Instead, they should have merely brought out the Ford or the Chrysler with the Edsel and DeSoto brand on them, and announced the brand’s end. No one was fooled by the ugly modifications and both corporations wasted money putting these ugly vehicles in public view for their final months. I guess the Marketing Department was owed something for their final years of failures.
What Ford and Chrysler did to these brands during their final months borders on cruelty.