(first posted 6/14/2016) Some time back, Paul Niedermeyer went on a two-door sedan jag here, bringing to us a renewed appreciation for that most lowly of body styles. I have found myself fixated a bit lately on the two door sedan’s polar opposite – the four door hardtop. My jag may bit a bit more of a slow motion affair than was Paul’s, but in follow-up to the 1956 Oldsmobile that I wrote up last time, I bring you another noteworthy early effort.
I am not sure that a single body style has gone from zero to sixty as quickly as the four door hardtop did. Following its debut on the 1955 Buick and Oldsmobile B body, it went almost industry-wide the following year, appearing in pretty much every showroom under a Big Three banner, and even at Rambler dealers.
By 1956, the basic structure of this Ford was in its fifth and final year of production, and its second and final year after the heavy facelift for 1955. An all-new Ford was in the works for 1957, and was in its final pre-production phases. There were actually two ’57 Fords underway (which is another story for another time), and a four door hardtop would be part of the line from the beginning. However, we can get a taste of how big of a wave this new body style was in the way that Ford went to the effort to engineer this offering in a vehicle that would be out of production perhaps six months from its introduction.
The Fordor Victoria was not even in the first printing of the ’56 Ford full line brochure, but in a revised version that was dated January, 1956. That brochures were revised in January makes it likely that cars began appearing at dealers somewhat later, perhaps one third of the way into the sales year and probably closer to half way through the production year. Chevrolet had a four door hardtop in 1956 as well, but those folks would be able to amortize the engineering over the slightly revised ’57 model too. But the Chevy-Ford rivalry was as strong as it ever was in the mid 1950s, and the idea of letting the Bow Tie Boys get the drop on the Ford team must have been completely unthinkable.
The Victoria name had a strong history at Ford. During the Model A era, one of the most expensive and desirable models was the Victoria coupe, a four place coupe with a little bustle butt that split the difference between a typical coupe’s long tail and a typical sedan’s complete lack of one. Ford was not the only place to find a Victoria, a body style that could be found on such rarefied cars as the Marmon Sixteen.
Perhaps this kind of nostalgia was behind Ford pulling the Victoria name out of retirement when the two door hardtop was introduced for 1951. Which was also in the last year of a body’s life, now that I think about it. Ford would not ditch the Victoria name for its hardtops (no matter how many doors) until 1963, when the Total Performance era finally brought Ford’s image all the way into the 1960s.
I saw this car on a recent weekend getaway with Mrs. JPC. Because we were celebrating our wedding anniversary, stopping to photograph old cars would be an activity that was to be strictly curtailed. However, as I drove past the gas station where this was parked, it became plain to me that a fuel and restroom stop would be absolutely necessary, even if it required turning around. And so, while the Mrs. was attending to other matters, I swiftly captured this car with the JPC DroidCam while fueling the trusty Sedona.
I am not sure I can remember ever seeing a Fordor Victoria in the metal before. In looking up the production figures, it is easy to see why. Ford managed to get about 32,000 of these out the door before the end of 1956 model production. To put this into perspective, Ford built about 225,000 Fairlane four door sedans. Actually, Ford built nearly twice as many Sunliner convertibles as they did Fordor Victorias. So, where arch-rival Chevrolet managed nearly 110,000 of its Bel Air Sport Sedans out to customers (about 16% of roughly 690,000 Bel Airs built), Ford managed to get it’s own four door hardtop up to only about 5% of total Fairlane production of about 645,000 cars.
There is something else unique about this car. When I first saw it, I first thought that someone had somehow removed the famous chrome triangle that graced the trailing edge of the rear window in every Ford four door hardtop before 1965. OK, if we are being sticklers, it was incorporated into the door design itself for the ’64 model. We can think of it as a sort of a bolt-on Hoffmeister Kink. But no, Ford managed to do without that feature for this short run of ’56 models while Mercury employed it from the beginning.
The purpose of that unique appendage was purely functional. In a sedan, whether the rear window rolls all the way down into the door is not critical. Thicker door uppers and sometimes ventpanes were used to keep the window glass within the dimensions that would allow it to nestle down into the door. But a four door hardtop makes this issue critical. The most successful way of minimizing the size of the rear door glass has been to bring the roofline forward enough of the door’s following edge. This was the GM method from the beginning (as shown on the 1956 Oldsmobile), and the method for Ford’s initial effort as well..
Actually, I just need to find one of Mopar’s 1956 senior four door hardops, which was the most ambitious and complicated solution to the problem, as might be expected from the engineers who dominated Highland Park in the ’50s. That conception for a two-piece rear window mechanism is worth an entire CC piece all initself.
Until researching this car, I had no idea that Ford used completely separate rooflines on the inaugural four door hardtops of Fords and Mercuries. The Mercury used what was essentially the roofline for the 1956 two door hardtops, which employed a much “faster” slope and featured a rear window with very little curvature. And, of course, that famous Ford kickup on the back doors. The Ford’s roofline was more akin to the Fairlane sedans or the 1955 hardtop, with a more deeply curved back window which allowed the C pillar move far enough forward to eliminate the door trim plate. Perhaps I am the only one who never noticed this. But I’ll wager not, as infrequently as these are seen.
As to the general styling of this car, I have said it before and I will say it again: The ’56 Ford is a beautifully styled car that has not received its due as time has marched on to a place where the ’57 Chevy and the ’59 Cadillac have come to define their decade in automotive terms. This car’s Peacock Blue and Colonial White color combo may be one of my very favorites offered that year, which only makes me like this car more.
All of this talk about the body of the car has caused me to gloss over the power. I love the callout for the “Thunderbird V8”, which sounded a lot more impressive than “292 Y Block” as we tend to call it today. Or, could this one have sported the “Thunderbird Special V8” that was the big 4 barrel 312? Ford had certainly figured out the secret to battling the Chevy smallblock by 1956 – just give the Y block a displacement advantage of nearly 20%. Keep away from the Borg-Warner-designed Ford-O-Matic transmission, and the 312-equipped Ford could give the Chevy with its 265 a run for its money. At least until the rust started and trade-in time came around. Which is just too bad, because this was such an appealing car on so many levels.
Not least of which was the inside. The ’56 Ford finally ditched the gimmicky “see through” instrument cluster which allowed natural light in through the top of the dash, in favor of an instrument-rich panel that looked more Chrysler than Ford.
In looking at some fuzzy small print in one of the brochures, I wondered “does that really call the upholstery fabric ‘tree nylon’?” A good look at the fabric itself answers the question. And I still can’t decide if this is a restored car or an exceptionally clean original. It looks too nice to be as old as it is, but then how often are 4 door cars treated to this kind of restoration, particularly those that probably have several parts that are close to unobtainable.
In my mind, rush jobs that come from intense competition to Hoover-up the customer’s money make for some of the most interesting stories behind the cars we feature here at CC. And this probably explains why so many of those stories are told and retold to (and by) those of us who are into this sort of thing. Rarely, a story presents itself that has not become familiar because of its numerous retellings, and this is one of them. So, until the next four door hardtop catches my fancy, let’s savor this one.
Further reading:
1956 Ford Fairlane Club Sedan (J P Cavanaugh)
1956 Ford Customline (Jason Shafer)
1956 Buick Century Four Door Hardtop (Paul Niedermeyer)
Nice find, cant say Ive ever seen a fordor hardtop but since we only got fordor sedans and Ranchwagons thats hardly a surprise, A school friends father traded their 48 Mercury sedan on a used 56 Customline sedan 272 boat anchor manual it was a real nice car I liked it as a kid whose dad had just bought a new Holden wagon that old Ford gave a nice ride and went ok, damn shame nobody sent the two door and hardtop model out here for local assembly.
Great write up JP. You do notice things that slip by many others. I consider myself a close observer of that era’s cars, but I never focused on the different ways to handle the “all-way-down” rear window. The curved rear window on this beautiful 56 doing double duty to shorten the length of the rear side windows is a great and interesting observation. Your penultimate photo also shows that the leading edge of the rear side window overlaps the front door’s trailing edge by a inch or two.
I never noticed that.
When I was a 12 year old car freak I did notice those Thunderbird fender emblems and think how fast that car must be. This was one beautiful car.
Ford would try to outdo the 56 in 57, and while the 57 was beautiful to look at and was a big seller, it suffered badly from quality issues.
Fine Tuesday morning read. Thank you.
And I wonder how Ford menaged to recover from quality issues of their 1957 compared to Chrysler with their 1957 offerings?
Interesting discussion of the ‘appendage’. Rambler’s version was the worst of all. A complete vent pane hanging on the rear of the door. Looked OK when closed, but it was dangerous when open. You didn’t expect it to be there, and it protruded beyond the rest of the door because of the reversed C-pillar. A real face-basher and hand-squasher.
The ’63 & ’64 Fleetwood 60 Specials had the same rear door window arrangement, “for the record”.
Lovely car! Everything is just right. It’s not too small or too big, decoration and chrome is not at all over done and the colour scheme inside and out is very attractive. That is one good looking car!
Like you, it’s doubtful I’ve ever seen one of these in the metal, but I do like the looks of them – much more visually appealing than any ’57 Chevrolet ever thought about being.
About whether or not this Ford is restored….from looking at these pictures, I suspect it may not be. It is ironic that with forty-seven other states in the continental US, this car is from Oregon – with plates that are good for another fourteen months. However, it may at least have been a bit reinvigorated, as it still has at least half of its interior door panels. Then, I also see the exhaust exiting through the rear bumper and sway toward restored (or invigorated).
Terrific catch!
Great find! Agree that this is a beautiful and under-rated car. Also really appreciated seeing the details and learning more about the various roof treatments for the 4-door hardtops.
The only modern analogy I can think of for the “hardtop space race” of the 1950s is today’s rush to computer-style control interfaces and vehicle connectivity. Makers are rapidly subsuming controls into touchscreen center stacks, adding Car Play, etc.
I should have noted that someone might be able to buy this one. These shots are from May 5th, along Indiana 37 between Bloomington and Bedford, if memory serves. Probably an 812 area code.
Here’s the pic of the rear window of a Chrysler hardtop in action. 🙂
Now ^that is something! I never would have thought it had a double drop like that.
This ’56 is one graceful Ford though. The “triangle” may have become something of a trademark of their hardtops but I personally think this one looks better without.
Having “enjoyed” all the adjustments needed to get the Windows to align on my ’65 convertible, that picture is nightmare inducing.
Probably murder to repair, but fun to watch how it works!
“Keep away from the Borg-Warner designed Ford-O-Matic transmission…..”
HUH?
Excuse ME??
Like the Chebbie’s slow, sloppy, inefficient, 2 speed “slip-n-side” PowerGlide automatic transmission was SO MUCH better?
C’mon now………
I’m no PG fan either, but by this time I think they’d gained a torque converter and were pretty reliable.
Agree, Chas, with the addition of a torque converter the PG had legendary reliability.
But it was still slow, sloppy, inefficient and lacking the much needed third gear and more favorable gear ratios of the Ford automatic.
but by this time they’d gained a torque converter
Guys, you just flunked PG 101 🙂
The PG always had a torque converter; that was essential, given that it was essentially a one-speed transmission in its early years (Low had to be selected manually). The PG was very similar to the Buick Dynaflow: instead of gears, it got all of its torque multiplication through its wide-ratio torque converter. A CVT, in essence. The term “automatic transmissions” may not be the right one, as we tend to think of an automatic as a gearbox that shifts automatically through the gears. A torque converter doesn’t “shift”, but it does change the effective gear ratios as speed picks up.
Having the PG and Dynaflow start in Low gave much better pep starting off, and did make it an “automatic transmission” in that sense of actually shifting gears, if only two.
The original BW/Ford-O-matic had three gears, but started in 2nd, unless Low was selected. The later version designed for the Falcon only had two gears.
Having NEVER been a fan of the PG, I can be foggy about it.
Thanks for the correction, Paul!
I learned “The Trick” to getting the most performance out of BW/Ford’s 3 speed Ford-O-Matic early in life: Pull the gear selector into the “L” position, stab the skinny pedal, hold it in Low for as long as you dared, move the gear selector to “D”, after the tranny shifts into second gear (lacking on the PG!), pull the lever back down to “L” to hold second gear for as long as you dared, then shift it back to “D” to allow the upshift to third gear.
As Paul commented, if you didn’t manually engage “L” this tranny would start off in second gear.
My ’53 Studebaker Champion Regal Starlight Hardtop had this tranny. Starting off in “L” and manually clicking it up to “D” gave this stylish-but-slow car MUCH MUCH MORE off the line pep.
Your 53 Stude should have had the DG auto, which was a joint venture between Studebaker and the Detroit Gear division of B-W. Ford tried to buy rights to use it, but Studebaker wouldn’t deal. The FOM was Plan B. The last Studes to use the DG were the 55s, and volume had dropped off to where B-W couldn’t commit to a per-unit price that Studebaker could afford. The Flight OMatic that Stude used from 1956 until the end was a B-W tranny that was basically a Ford O Matic but with reverse gear at the bottom of the quadrant.
Starting in 1956 Fordomatics started off in first gear.
Yep, “Poor Mans’s Dynaflow” is a fair description of Power Glide. And given Chevrolet (like Buick) using torque tube drive in the early Power Glide era, it only made sense to use a similar concept!
I’m not even sure it qualified as a “poor man’s Dynaflow,” as the early Powerglide had a number of features the early Dynaflow didn’t, including a weird secondary coupling within the torque converter that was intended to provide better engine braking. (Since that feature didn’t reappear on subsequent transmissions, its deletion presumably wasn’t seen as any great loss, but Dynaflow didn’t have that.) The “poor man’s” portion of the bill was trying to hook the transmission to a Stovebolt Six. Early Dynaflow Buicks weren’t any too quick, but a 5.2-liter Roadmaster engine was a little better able to cope with the whir-and-slush effect.
To put in perspective just how dire the situation was with the early Powerglide, maximum torque multiplication at stall was only 2.20, dropping off as engine speed increased. Powerglide cars had a taller 3.55:1 axle to try to keep fuel consumption within reason. An early ’50s Chevrolet three-speed had a 2.94 low gear with a standard 4.11 axle. That’s a 7.8:1 maximum starting ratio against 12.1:1,so even with the bigger, more powerful six, Powerglide cars were pretty hopeless without manually starting in low.
I was thinking in terms of stoplight drags where the PG didn’t need to shift before it was time to hit the brakes for the next stoplight and the Ford driver would have to work to avoid the normal 2nd gear starts with the FOM.
At the local Sherwin-Williams yesterday, I noticed a white ’56 Chevy with ghost flames just down the street at the used car lot.
So after buying my supplies and depositing them in my Tahoe, I went to the lot next door to discover they wanted $19,500…
…and that it was a four-door hardtop.
I see the appeal but never got into them. My parents had a few growing up, most notably a ’61 Chrysler New Yorker in which he raced his BFF Lew and his ’63 Buick Wildcat on a Detroit expressway late at night. The legacy of that adventure was a broken speedometer cable, which he never bothered to fix.
And even though I think the ’57 Chevy is the prettiest passenger car ever and deserves every inch of its iconic status, the 4-door sport sedan is a TOTAL turnoff.
Sorry. I’ll stick with my posts. They look mighty nice on my 210 Handyman.
What is a total turn-off for me.. is the many, typical yo-yos that would rather have a two-door sedan than a four-door HARDTOP.
Trivia question: who made the last 4-dr. hardtop? [Hint: front vent windows were OPTIONAL in these cars.]
Drag racers, street racers and people who wanted to look like them sought out 2-door sedans since they were the lightest and stiffest body style. For what most early-postwar classics are used for today I find the premium 2-doors command to not be worth it, but people want what they want (which is what they wanted when they were young).
The last 4-door hardtop was made by either Nissan or Toyota, for the Japanese home market.
The last American 4-door hardtops were the 1978 Chrysler Newport and New Yorker.
There were no four-door post sedans in those lines that year, for the final year of the C body they, the wagons and all Dodge and Plymouth versions were dropped leaving only the Chrysler-brand models as a 2 or 4 door hardtop, or an opera-window coupe that was still structurally a hardtop with only a cosmetic upper B-pillar and fixed quarter glass.
I’ve always considered the ’56 Ford Vickie a far superior car than the ’56 Chebby Bel-Air, in looks, chassis and transmission.
This article’s car is a perfect example of why I feel this way.
+1. I find the ’55-’56 Fords much more attractive than the tri-five Chevies.
Aussie had that 56 Ford untill the tank Fairlane arrived there were still plenty in sheds on orchards when I was there.
I’ve probably said this before, but I really think in the long run the best looking cars of the decade may be the various ’55-’56 models.
They may not be as iconic (or cliche) as some of the ’57-’59s, but you really have to look to find a dud.
Yup! Just like 1965/66 model years! Not a “klinker” in the bunch.
Nice looking car. I’ve always liked 4-dr hardtops. Dad had a ’69 Galaxie 4-dr hardtop that he bought when I was about 11 and kept it about 4 years. I loved that car! What’s always intrigued me about the hardtop design is how did they fasten the center door post so that there was no flex and the doors closed tight? I don’t remember much body flex on the Galaxie but the windows would always leak a bit when going thru a carwash.
When I was a kid, I would spend some weekends at the farm of my father’s foster mother. She didn’t have a car so we got rides to church on sunday with a neighbor who owned a succession of Mercury 4 door hardtops that started with a 56 Montclair or Monterey. All of those hardtops were light colored cars, either white or light brown.
Considering the neighbor was a cattle rancher, I was surprised that his practicality only seemed to extend to his choice of colors.
Thanks for a great breakfast read. Yes, these were always rare, and I remember being pretty chuffed seeing one when I was a kid.
These look more like a two-door hardtop than just about any of the others, due to the roof line and the way the rear window issue was resolved. If Ford had thought of a way to “hide” the rear door handle, the effect would really have been convincing.
I too was impressed by Ford’s Thunderbird V8 call-out. I had my first really fast ride in a ’56 Ford with that call-out. I severely damaged my hand in a hay elevator while helping the neighbors of the Mennonite family I spent summers with, and Mr.Yoder wisely asked their son if he could take his Ford to drive me to the doctor in Kalona. I tried to distract myself by not looking at my torn-up fingers by watching the Ford’s speedometer bounce around at 90+ mph on Hwy 1.
Of course, the doctor there couldn’t do anything but cut my two fingers off, so he just wrapped my hand and told us to head the other direction to Iowa City and the UofI hospital, which fortunately had a world-famous hand surgeon. He reconstructed my fingers well enough so that I could eventually play the violin again. But I never played well, and my crooked and scarred fingers became my excuse for my mediocre playing, not the fact that I never practiced.
That ’56 Ford had the same color scheme (it was a 2 door sedan), and seeing its interior always brings back memories of that very vast ride, hearing that Thunderbird V8 hammering away, in its distinctive Y Block sound. I’ve love that sound ever since.
I also share Paul’s admiration for the “Thunderbird V8” emblems. (and all the other engine emblems of the 1950’s-1970’s)
My car friends and I would stand on a busy corner and try to top each other by spotting high performance engine emblems.
When my Father had to do a CPO special order (and wait 7 weeks) to get the 390 4BBL/dual exhaust “Thunderbird Special” engine (and the heavy duty “Trailer Towing” suspension package he felt this marshmallow sprung wagon HAD to have) in my Mother’s ’66 Ford Country Sedan station wagon, it arrived with just the usual “390” chevron emblem on the front fenders.
I was disappointed, I was P-O’d. I wanted some kind of different “Thunderbird Special” fender insignia. I wanted to go junk yard shopping with Dad to find the ’56 Thunderbird V8 emblems for Mom’s “grocery getter”.
+1. Another emblem-spotter here.
Thanks for this tale (which perhaps you’ve hinted at before), which helps us all get to know your rich past a bit better.
BTW, you threw a scare into me (and perhaps another follower or two) with this one:
“Of course, the doctor there couldn’t do anything but cut my two fingers off….”
If I were your editor, I think I’d have gently suggested: “Of course, the doctor there couldn’t have done anything but cut my two fingers off….”
Having said all that, Paul: I’m a Ford guy from a family of several onetime Ford employees–and yet you know oodles about FoMoCo (among other things) that has escaped me all these years.
Yes, I was rushing a bit when I wrote that. 🙂
At least he wrapped them; I was tired of looking at them in the car.
Anyone recall the beautiful black 1955-56 Ford Victoria 4 door hardtop that Kevin McCarthy drove in the original “Invasion Of The Body Snatchers”?
🙂
Pretty car, tho I must admit I’m a biased and unabashed ’55-’56 Ford fan as well as a 4 door hardtop fan. With all the cars I’ve owned (around 50, lost count 🙂 ), only 3 were 4 door hardtops. A ’68 Galaxie, a ’70 Impala, and a ’59 Edsel Ranger which I stupidly sold when I lost my storage at the time (’91). Sure wish I could find that Ranger, it had the Super Express V8 (361 4bbl) with Dual-Power Drive and a locking diff. Was it a hoot to drive!!!
I just found a dandy 7-page LIFE magazine article (30 Jan. 1956) with nice color art of *everything* (lots of focus on hardtops, convertibles, wagons) from Detroit–plus imports as well. (Easy to find at Google’s LIFE archive; BTW, no mention of the Ford 4-dr hardtop yet; it’s in a LIFE ad on 12 March). Here’s what the first page is like:
In grade two at school, if you finished your work early there was a pile of old National Geographics in the corner you could look at. The big attraction for me was these colourful car ads, showing ones that weren’t sold here. I have a print of one on my study wall showing “The Ford Family of Fine Cars” for ’58; all the Fords, Edsels, Mercuries and Lincolns in every body style.
Also FWIW, here’s what Popular Mechanics was hearin’ through the grapevine just before the ’56 models appeared:
The 1956 Fords are beautiful, with “just right” styling in comparison to the drabness of many early 50s cars and the overchromed excess of the late 50s, all packaged in a trim-sized car.
Here’s the Crown Vic twin of this car, except for the garish Continental kit.
Although it wasn’t a true B-pillar-less four door hardtop, the ’55 Mercury Montclair Sport Sedan with its lowered roof and dropped window sills was the basis on which the ’56 Mercury four door hardtops were engineered. The Sport Sedan was also available in ’56, though eclipsed by its glamorous successor. Love both styles!
Regarding Chevy vs Ford of this era … my automotive memory goes back to 1960, but gets much crisper around 1963. By that time, it wasn’t uncommon to see ’55-56 Chevies with “mags”, maybe jacked up in the back with slightly bigger tires, etc. In other words, they were cool. But ’55-56 Fords? Never a hardtop, whether 2 or 4 doors, and not stylish two-tones. They were usually tan sedans, dented and rusty, missing two out of four dog-dish hub caps and driven by an old lady or a poor student. A ’49 (or ’63) Ford was much cooler. At least that’s how I remember things.
Another fan of the 55-56 Fords here (and 57-58 here in Australia!), the only area where they fall down slightly for me is the height of the roof above the top of the windows, which is taller than the competition (GM at least) and makes the car look a bit more old-fashioned.
I’d say that the Fordor hardtop would be one of the rarer bodystyles here, because in addition to the locally assembled 4-door sedans and wagons there have been quite a few privately-imported 2-door hardtops and convertibles over the years of various types, but I suppose a 4-door hardtop is not as different to be worth the bother.
Very interesting reading, thanks.
My dad had a 62 Galaxie 500 Town Victoria. It was a very nice car and contrary to what he expected, it stayed solid and water tight for the 7 years he had it.
Perhaps it’s too obvious to mention, but there’s that headlight/tail-light “look” that these cars shared with the Thunderbird (cost-saving?)–which always appealed to me. (Harder to imagine a ’56 Chevy & Corvette sharing styling cues.)
’56 Chevy and Corvette sharing styling cues, you say? It could have happened…witness the ’55 Chevy Biscayne motorama concept.
These styling cues probably helped the “regular” Ford, Ford spread the Thunderbird’s name to the engines. Styling relating to a higher prestige has to be veiwed as a bonus: Look how many GM cars aped the 1975 Cadillac Seville styling by 1980.
I have always thought the 56 Ford as my favourite style of the he 50’s. Everything came together just perfectly style wise… And that y-block sound with dual Hollywood mufflers… My neighbour had a 312 in a 56 Merc when I was a 10 year old kid… The way it roared and the tires burned!!! My dad used to just stand there and say..”where does he get ALL that power!!” I have never seen anyone beat a mule harder and it never broke down until he finally parked it.
In 1956, by late uncle purchase a ’56 Ford Fairlane Fordor Victoria almost identical to the one pictured in this article. In 1985 he gave the car to me with only 22,962 miles on it. I’ve done some minor repairs to it but no major restoration work as it didn’t need any. The car is stunning with its Peacock Blue and Colonial White exterior and the original Peacock tree and white vinyl interior looks almost new. The car currently has 30,145 miles on it. It has the original 312 Y-block V-8 and is a true survivor. It has the Lifeguard safety package and I recently replaced the worn out dash pad. Even the Bendix-King 6-tube AM radio still works. When I was cleaning up the car, I was surprised to find that the original headlamps were still with the car. On the back of each bulb is stamped “Made for Ford by GE.” The car is currently for sale for $65,000.
This is my ’56 Fordor Victoria…
I am amazed that Ford offered 6 different station wagon models for 1956.
I’m in desperate need for a replacement rubber post that goes from the roof to the door. I have a 4 door hardtop, no post, 56 Victoria. I can’t seem to find one (or two) anywhere. Can anyone help? Thanks. Phil Kerr
The ‘56 Ford is right at the top of my personal list for favorite ‘50s styling.
The “Thunderbird V-8” engine callouts are cool. Kind of like the “Corvette” script valve covers for the SBC, one could get “Thunderbird” valve covers (with the bird on them) for the Y-block Fords. Great cross-marketing, and it was a way to give an open-hood (or open hood sided) hot rod a bit of extra panache and style.
A beautiful collection of writing, photography and artwork, thank you!
Great write up! Four-door hardtops are a pleasure to the eye. And I agree – the ’56 Ford doesn’t get its proper due. It was a beautiful, well considered design that makes the contemporary Chevrolets look a little frumpy by comparison.
The text of the 1920s ad is worth a read, going into detail about what was considered visually exciting about the new model – the lowness of the roof, the (very slight) rake of the windshield, and the spare tire set at a “conforming angle” to the sloping rear.
There’s also a reference to “continental design…in the shape and size of the side windows and the intimate interior arrangement.” Makes it a little more possible to see the car though 1920s’ eyes.
My parents bought a 1956 Fairlane Victoria 2 door hardtop in same colors right after their wedding in fall of 1955! It was way gone by the time I arrived, and evidently it rusted out pretty early, unfortunately (being in NJ I guess didn’t help) My dad still talks of that car, and yes, it’s under appreciated compared to the Chevys of its era. I didn’t know Ford made a 4 door hardtop this same year, wow.
This past weekend we were celebrating my Mrs.’ birthday, a milestone I guess you could say, and on an outing in the car, we passed by a few classic cars. Like you, the photographing of said classic cars is to be strictly curtailed during such events, however I managed to stop and take not one, but two cars, in less than a jiffy. A 54 Plymouth and a 71 Chevelle. I have shot the Plymouth before, and hope to write it up one day.
However when a third car appeared in all its patina, I wisely chose to give it a pass. Perhaps another time 1965 Pontiac.
FYI, the “first posted” date in the first line is incorrect: right month and date, wrong year.
Good shots and article. I saw an identical ‘56 Ford last summer in Port Dover, Ontario…complete with the Thunderbird V8 callouts. Maybe it made its way up to Ontario sometime over the past 5 or 6 years – who knows?
I own the 1956 Fordor Victoria that my uncle purchased in 1956. The car currently has 30,396 miles on it. I was 4 years old when he bought in and I literally grew up with it. In 1985, when my uncle gave me the car, the odometer showed 22,962 miles on it. I’ve done everything possible to keep the car in pristine condition with the help of several specialty shops, local vendors, and friends. It has placed 3rd in Original Class at 2 Crown Victoria National Conventions. The 312 runs smooth and the car rides like a dream. With no power steering or power brakes, sometimes it drives like a truck when parking or maneuvering it slowly. But, it’s mine
I own a 1956 ford Fairlane Victoria 4 door Hardtop. blue and white in colour with 77, 000 miles. In verygood condition. I am trying to find out how many 4 door hardtops were produced and how many there may still be in existence? I live in Fort Frances, Ontario, Canada. Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
I own this exact model, colors and trim. At car shows I am stunned to see how many people comment on her rarity. The only parts I have had trouble getting we’re weatherstrippng. My Vicky has less than 32k miles.