Last week, Paul couldn’t help but love the stylish “Mid-Century” grille on this 1955 Monterey 2-Door Hardtop–a true Curbside Classic. But how was the rest of the car? Motor Trend served up several articles on the 1955 Mercury, including drive reports and an overview of new models, including the new top-of-the-line Montclair series. What did MT’s editors make of the “Mighty Mercury for 1955”?
The Mercury line was significantly enhanced for 1955 with all-new styling inside and out, as well as increased power under-hood. 1955 also heralded the arrival of the upmarket Montclair Series targeting rivals like the Buick Century, DeSoto Firedome and Oldsmobile Super 88. Initially the Montclair line consisted solely of 2-doors, including the novel (and rare) “Sun Valley” 2-door hardtop with the plexiglass roof insert over the front seat, but a 4-door sedan was added shortly after the start of production.
Motor Trend Editor Walt Woron also featured the Mercury in his “Driving Around” series (plus the Lincoln was covered too, for a Lincoln-Mercury “Lucky Strike Extra”). Woron found the Mercury to be capable and quick (in the context of the times and the type of car), and certainly capable of competing with the “hotter” cars from competitive makes.
Motor Trend also conducted a full road test of the Mercury Custom sedan. Oddly, the car was very basically equipped for a Mercury, lacking both power steering and power brakes, so the car couldn’t provide a full-on “upmarket” experience. But it did perform well: in general Motor Trend liked the handling and responsiveness of the Mercury. As equipped (Custom Sedan, Merc-o-matic, radio, heater), the Mercury Custom tested would have listed for $2,637 ($24,647 adjusted), pretty low for an “step-up” car.
When it came to Mercury buyers for 1955, they did in fact want more upscale rides: the higher-priced Monterey and Montclair series turned out to be the best sellers for the year.
| Bodystyle | Custom | Monterey | Montclair |
| 2-Door Sedan | 31,295 | – | – |
| 2-Door Hardtop | 7,040 | 69,093 | 71,588 |
| 4-Door Sedan | 21,219 | 70,392 | 20,624 |
| 4-Door Station Wagon | 14,134 | 11,968 | – |
| 2-Door Convertible | – | – | 10,668 |
| 2-Door “Sun Valley” Hardtop | – | – | 1,787 |
| Total 1955 Sales | 73,688 | 151,453 | 104,667 |
Overall 1955 Mercury sales were 329,808, a 27% increase versus 1954, which seems like an impressive gain. However, the overall U.S. car market was booming in 1955, with total sales up 47%, so Mercury actually underperformed the market. The competition was more fierce than ever, and a plethora of new products from General Motors and Chrysler Corporation were able to capture the lions share of the sales increase for the year.
Still, from the grille on back, there was a lot to love about this 1955 Mercury.
The first article had two really interesting statements….
It states Mercury sales were 1.2 million from 1947 to 1954 vs. 250,000 from 1938 to 1946. Duh. Did they forget about that little kerfuffle in Europe and Asia that halted automobile production for a few years along with Mercury being a new model for 1939?
The other observation is about safety. The article comments about the lack of a padded dash for the 1955 Mercury but when, in turn, Ford went full-in selling safety for 1956 it got them nowhere. Granted, it’s the difference between the market and enthusiasts, but it’s an intriguing statement. It makes me wonder if Motor Trend had much to say about Ford’s safety initiative the next year.
Of course in 1955 Mercury was only still getting its mojo collected. It would shower the world with it throughout the 1960s and 1970s.
1955 would have been a great year to buy a new car, at least from one of the Big 3. But I could see how modern styling on Dodge and DeSoto and the fabulous new cars from Pontiac and Olds would have been tough on Mercury salesmen.
The 292 shows its inherent weakness with rated output of 198 bhp with high compression, 4 bbl and duals. The significantly smaller 4 bbl 259 in the 55 Studebaker President was only 18 bhp behind it (as was the high output Chevy 265). Dodge got 193 bhp out of a 270 V8 and Pontiac got 200 from its brand new 287. Less power from more cubic inches seemed to be the Ford Way until well into the 60s. The fact that Ford was unwilling to round up to 200 in that era of squishy horsepower figures makes me wonder if they had to stretch to get to the 198 figure.
These numbers also show why the 300 horses in the Chrysler 300 was such a big deal in 1955.
I just noticed that Motor Trend actually did a dyno test to determine “road horsepower” at different speeds. They got a max of 100 out of the basic 188 horsepower version of the 292. I wonder how MT’s dyno tests looked on some of the other 1955 V8s in Mercury’s general class (like the ones I mentioned above). That would give a pretty good indication of how this engine shaped up to the competition.
That sounds right. Back in the 80’s 4-Wheeler magazine did rear wheel dyno tests on their test vehicles and in 88 a Bronco with the 185 hp rated 5.0 actually put 103 horses to the ground. Turned 0-60 in 10 seconds. It’s also a known fact that Fords (pre emission) 200 six in stock form with stick puts 65hp to the ground in every rear wheel dyno test I’ve seen since the first one in 67 for Hot Rod magazine. Factory rated at the flywheel at 120hp.
The seeds of the midprice crash that happened in the 1958 downturn were already germinating in the ’55s. What did a strippo Merc Custom have to offer when a nicely loaded Chevy Bel Air was so good.
Yes, 1955 was a great car year J P, however according to one automotive Historian this happened.
Was surprised to learn that Lincoln did not have a wrap-around windshield in 1955, while Mercury and even lowly Ford did. In fact, did any other ’55 car not have a wrap-around?
Lincoln seemed to get into a pattern where they brought out a new model in years after Ford and Mercury. I’m thinking of 1956, 1958, 1961, 1970, 1980.
The “early” 55 Studebaker used the same windshield it had used in 1953 and 54. Midyear they made a major change that included a wrapped windshield that was in a style similar to the 55-56 Mopars.
Fascinating tidbit on the early/late 1955 Studebakers. The most interesting thing is the reuse of the advertising material. You can tell the company was really pinching pennies when they couldn’t even afford completely new ads to tout the redesigned windshield, which, to my understanding, would not have been an inexpensive change.
That the picture shows brochure covers, and they clearly did not want to go to the expense of a second photography session. The backstory there was that dealers were screaming for a wraparound windshield and their screaming was so loud that management rushed the new design to midyear 1955 instead of waiting to put it on the new 56s. Hindsight says that this might have been a mistake because 55 was a good sales year but 56 was down for everyone and, for Studebaker, down even more despite a newly restyled car.
Willys & Kaiser did not, but ’55 was the last year for both, so not too surprising.
The big Nash did have a wrap windshield but the Metropolitan did not. Not sure how you could fit one on that body if you wanted to.
As a youngster I bought and built a Revell ’55 Montclair, unaware that it was a Ford in a Sunday suit.
I remember reading a report of a major road-race in Mexico, won by a Mercury on three wheels and one end of the front bumper ( must have had a limited-slip diff).
Every time an article that even mentions Mercury appears here, I let everyone know my feelings…so I won’t go into it again.
REALLY love the last picture that features a red on red combo. I can almost see it with skirts, and dual exhaust pipes sticking out from under the rear bumper.
This reminded me of certain days in high school when i would hook school, take the bus to downtown Baltimore, and immerse myself in a stack of old magazines at the Enoch Pratt main library. Thanks for the time trip!
It’s remarkable that Ford had to already design new heads for the Y Block in only its second year. It arrived in ’54 with such a dud. Ford’s engine engineers were not exactly up to par, although the ohv six that arrived in ’52 was generally considered very good and competitive.
Paul,
I used to do the same thing, I remember when someone stole the entire 1958 Motor Trend collection!
“You’ll search a long time before you find a better handling car”. This was a good reminder that in the ‘50’s, and in fact until quite recently, MT was almost 100% American car focused. I don’t think you would have seen a statement like that in Road & Track. Not even in 1955, with MG’s, Austin’s Healey’s, and a few fine handling European sedans on sale in the US. I also found their definition of understeer interesting, claiming it provides “drifting qualities”. Hmm … I’ve never driven an American car quite this old, but I can’t imagine anything except terminal push. Nevertheless, a great in-depth report; hard to believe this car and magazine are just a few years older than me! Oh, and count me in as another who poured through every issue of PM, PS, and MT at the public library every month; in fact, as I’ve let all my car magazine subscriptions lapse in recent years, I am doing the same again, though MT is now accompanied by R&T, C&D, Automobile and Hemmings. And I skip a lot of the articles; just how many Camcord and Fusionata tests can one read?
The oldest cars I have driven so far were a 49, 51, and 53 Plymouth with (of course) the Molar 6. The closest I came to drifting one of them was when the brakes on the 53 “died” suddenly one rainy morning. Those cars either charged straight into curves and resisted efforts to change direction….or you had to drop so much speed that you crawled through curves.
But, hey, with power steering I would imagine your ability to corner with a respectable amount of speed improved mightily.
It’s a bit ironic, but when I see how today’s roads are nearly curve free and how older roads in the US followed land contours or property borders with lots of curves…..well, back then you needed power steering.
Consumer Reports, which was more “square” and, some might say, cynical in its testing and reporting, praised the ’55 Mercury’s high power and very good handling/roadability. However, “The riding qualities…resemble those of the Ford, and are not as good as should be expected of cars in this group. The Mercury structure is below average in resistance to shake on rough roads. Steering is not particularly quick nor easy.” The low and jazzy Montclair model is denounced as a ” ‘chop job’ in the language of customizers” with headroom and rear legroom reduced to achieve the low look. CR prefers the Oldsmobile and DeSoto in this field.
I haven’t driven a Mercury of this vintage to compare my experience with the magazine writers’. All cars of this period are an interesting mixture of greatness and foibles, and I like the ’55-’56 Mercurys a lot!
I had never really paid attention to the way the 55 Montclair donated its hardtop roof to the 56 Fairlane.
I own a Rolleiflex just like the lady is using. Dad owned a 56 Mercury which he bought used in the early 60’s. Said it was an ok car, better than his mothers Falcon,
That’s a Rolleiflex 3.5 MX, from the details like the shutter button guard and the flash sync selector. It was in production from 1951 until 1954 and was a very popular Rolleiflex in an era when the twin-lens reflex was king and Rollei was at the top of the heap. It is still a great picture-taker today. I overhauled my own 3.5 MX and still use it occasionally.
Thats what I have too…and I still use mine. Wish I had the Tessar version though, more panache than the Schneider Xenar. This is mine.
It’s interesting how they promoted the wrapped windshield as providing “better visibility” but just 5 yrs later when the trend had burned itself out were in a big rush to get back to a normal raked A pillar.
People were probably getting tired of getting their kneecaps cracked!
The Mercury is great and all, but what I REALLY want is that Rolleiflex she’s holding…
Interesting about the top-line Montclair and the MT article “forecasting” the eventual appearance of a 4-door sedan to join the line. Sure enough, it’s announced for “early Spring delivery”:
I had never noticed how much effort Ford spent on unique 4 door roof treatments for Mercury. The Ford and Mercury 4 door hardtops were completely different in 1956 and these 55 sedans were different from the Ford/regular Mercury sedan as well.
April 1955 ad with nice blurb from Tom McCahill:
Curious. They’re calling it both a sedan and “hardtop”. But it’s not a real hardtop, which oddly came along just a half year later, in 1956.
Mercury was most likely trying to do something to stay relevant in the face of the new 4 door hardtops that GM was offering on Olds and Buick in 1955.
Perhaps Broderick Crawford’s use of the ’55 Merky in Highway Patrol episodes got more buyers in the dealers’ showrooms than this review did…
Had a 55 Montclair 2 dr hardtop red & white full continental kit. Would love to have another one!