I know; Edsels are a bit overexposed. But this Pacer hardtop coupe shot by Curtis Perry is a bit too delicious to not share, especially in the context of what it’s sharing the street with. And we think cars today are “overstyled”?
For those of you not initiated into the cult of Edsel, this is one of the “junior” series, which shared its body with the ’58 Ford, like the convertible in this composite. The whole front clip was the same on both, except for a little filler piece added along the front fender of the senior Edsels (lower) so as to meet the wider “shoulders” of the Mercury body used by them.
Compared to the front, the rear is almost restrained. Almost.
My first thought when looking at the shot of the rear, was that it was remindful of a 1957 Pontiac, at first glance. Make those taillights vertical instead and they could be related. It’s the light coloured area on the quarter panel that looks like it was inspired by the Pontiac spear.
I wouldn’t say these are over exposed, these were beautiful cars, brought out at the wrong time.
Beautiful? Hmmmm… All in the eye of the beholder I suppose, but bringing these out in a deep recession year was a killer. I think FMC should have given the full Edsel line another year or two to get its legs under it before pulling the plug. Instead, they panicked, jettisoning the senior models in 1959 as well as every interesting feature that gave these their personality (Tele-touch, drum speedometer, the 410 c.i. engine, etc.). The result was more Ford with a weird grill than anything else. 1960 was even worse.
Alright, it’s late here, but I’ll try.
The eye-watering oddities that rose and fell between about ’57 and ’61 lacked one thing that has come to define design for a considerably longer period of time now.
There is just something in the styling of these curved and wacky chromed things-upon-things-upon-things space-future styling that these these exuberant sillies have that seems to have always had the slightest wink to self-knowledge. That is, to a Knowing that was shared with buyers – them conscious of it or not – that this was always and ever a party that ends like any other, at about dawn. Shortlived effervessence, as it were.
A similar excess of mutifarious and aggressive stuff-n-nonsense in the styling current today seems, to this biased eye, to lack any such sense of itself, and it is that that makes all the difference.
It takes itself seriously. It really shouldn’t.
Goodnight.
Yes, this and most of the rest of the era was just as overdone in terms of scoops, wings, random bits of flair and protruding light units as anything produced today. Don’t get me started on color, I’m certainly not opposed to multiple colors on a car but how is a different colored roof these days in any way less subdued than something like this? As well as “floating roofs”, exactly the same thing this and others were trying to do with chrome pillars as opposed to blacked out ones these days. I’m not sold on the front, but everything behind the front axle is solid enough for me to probably have enjoyed it back in the day.
Everything new is actually old. Sometimes you just have to go back another generation or two to find it.
I concur. Downsize a ’58 Edsel station wagon, give it a sloping rear roof, put an AWD system underneath and, suddenly, you have a 2020 Toyota crossover!
Take away the horse collar and I can almost excuse the airy coupe. The rear is pleasant…the tail light concept somehow reminds me of the 59 Chevy, but done more tastefully (not a word I would generally think of when describing an Edsel, but speaking relative to a 59 Chev).
The convertible is a blob. The wheels spats and roof line bring a heaviness that do it no favors at all, harking more to the 40’s than to a late 50’s view of the future.
Agreed – the ’59 Chevy’s back is weirder and uglier than the ’58 Edsel’s front.
The differences between the sr and jr series are too numerous to mention. The front fenders are NOT interchangeable. Even the tail lights are different. I own a 58 Corsair 2 door. I think the styling did exactly what it was intended to do. You will not mistake an Edsel for anything else on the road. True in 58 and true today.
I didn’t say the front fenders were “interchangeable”. I said they were essentially the same, except for the horizontal protrusion add to the senior version.
The rest of the front end parts are undoubtedly interchangeable.
And I did say that the rear 2/3 of them were different, on account of the senior versions using the wider Mercury body.
In an era of wretched styling excess, aside from the “sucking on a lemon” grill, these Edsels were positively restrained compared to about everything else coming out of Detroit at the time.
I feel the same way, I think the rear end is genuinely good looking for a late 50s car, and the rest is way more restrained than most. I mean, is this really a worst looking car as a whole than the 1958 Ford or Mercury?
On that thought, if Edsel the brand wasn’t a thing, which was ultimately the problem, if this styling, horse collar grille and all was the 1958 Ford instead of the watered down from 57, hastily shoehorned in quad headlight 58 Ford we know, would this styling be so notorious as it is? I feel like Edsels biggest failure isn’t the styling being that bad, but not being up to the hype fewer and fewer lived through or having a real place in the market, which are reasons that don’t really resonate with people learning about the Edsel saga as much as it failed because it was ugly “I mean look at it! …. no not the oldsmobile, that one! …No, not the mercury, the one next to it!”
I give you the 1958 Chrysler
and
Maybe someone can explain to me why this “sucking on a lemon” Edsel grille is ugly and terrible, but an Alfa Romeo or Jaguar grille of similar shape is accepted, and sells successfully?
A highly relevant question. Even Subaru aped the look for a while some years ago. Plus Pontiac on the full-sizers in, I believe, 1969 or 1970.
They did it first. And the cars drive well and are otherwise beautiful too. There’s also a racing history, i.e. pedigree.
Short answer, snobbery.
Long answer, sometimes styling themes don’t scale up or down well, and if you see the Alfa face in the much larger than anything Alfa made back then(which, I also do), it does seem a little extra grotesque. Similarly, I find the upscaled 911 front end equally gross on the Porsche SUVs, but they sell like hot cakes(re. snobbery)
To my eyes, the difference is the heavy chrome inner ring floating in the Edsel grille. It provides too much vertical accent. Take that away,, leaving just the chrome around the edges, and it’d be better.
But with all the light reflecting off that deep inner vertical ring, combined with the delicate horizontal bars in the side grilles, the eye doesn’t know whether to go up and down or sideways – and perceives a mess.
Ahead of its time
The sign of the double-Edsel?
I feel like Oscar the Grouch–always in the trash can!
’58 was a wretched year for both Ford and especially GM styling. Chrysler would wait for ’60 to catch up.
Chrysler had great styling in 1960
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/comment-image/1010607.jpg
I really meant the cheaper lines, Dodge, Plymouth and Valiant (weird to my eye). I forgot that Chrysler and DeSoto, even on brand new unit body, styling did somewhat carry over.
I never thought the ’58 Edsel was that bad, especially when compared to some of the chrome laden, over sculpted beasts coming out of GM that model year. I’m not sure anything could have lived up to the hype of its introduction though. The ’59 Edsel was downright conservative compared to the General but by then it was too late…
A marketing blunder for sure, but I think the overall styling is practically conservative for 1958 outside of that broken nose (which I like). It is slab sided and devoid of an aggressive rear “fin” that it seems to foreshadow the ‘60s, but has the illusion due to color contrast. The quality concerns and the recession were nail coffins, for sure. A pitty.
CC-in-scale has about half a dozen Edsels to choose from.
How are Edsels a bit “Overexposed?”
There is a lot of awful to the Edsel front end. The rest of the car is fine, but that face is bad. Considering that within two years the high mounted duo headlights would reside lower in the grille, this front end is simply not good. Ford seemed to have thought more about what a 1955 “futuristic” car would look like, than what a 1958 futuristic car should look like.
BTW – the best looking 1958 Ford products were the ones from Mercury, just saying.