(first posted 9/16/2016) It’s hard to imagine in today’s new car market that just three makes could command over half of U.S. car sales, but that was the case back in 1957, and Chevrolet, Ford and Plymouth were the cars. So this Motor Trend comparison test would have been of interest to a majority of buyers. Though no “winner” was clearly anointed, as with all Motor Trend articles of the time, careful reading of the text will expose the editors’ actual, subtly revealed preferences.
This particular Bel Air certainly was an odd duck in terms of the equipment: Powerglide with the “hot” dual-4V 283 V8 (a set-up which would have cost $516–$4,419 adjusted!), manual steering and non-power brakes. As such, it really wasn’t representative of what most Chevy buyers would have actually purchased. So comments about the rough-idling engine, for example, could be discounted since they wouldn’t pertain to most ’57 Chevrolets. But it was clear that MT thought Turboglide was preferable to Powerglide. And the editors weren’t thrilled with the brakes: “inadequate for mountain driving or highway traffic!” Most of all, MT lamented that the Chevrolet had gone “soft”–handling wasn’t as crisp nor was the ride as controlled as on the 1956 models. For buyers seeking isolation as often found on more premium makes, this could be a plus… but there was no getting around the fact that MT simply did not find the ’57 Chevrolet as responsive as before. From a styling standpoint, MT noted that Chevy had adopted styling cues from its more senior GM siblings, which to some eyes made the car look more expensive. It was clearly the start of something at Chevrolet–future models would get softer and bigger, while more closely mimicking upmarket GM cars as the years progressed. The first step on Sloan’s ladder of price and prestige was hungry to go higher…
Compared to the oddly equipped Bel Air, the Fairlane 500 that Motor Trend tested was a much more representative sample of what a Ford customer would have bought. In fact, the 4-door Town Sedan with its “hardtop” look was the best selling Fairlane 500 (193,162 sold), and the 2nd best selling Ford body style overall (the Custom Fordor sedan beat it by just 1,715 units). The test car had the top engine available in a Fairlane 500: the 312 4V Thunderbird Special V8 with Ford-O-Matic, which would have cost $323 ($2,766 adjusted). While this power plant was still quite pricey, it was far cheaper than the top Bel Air 283 V8 with Fuel Injection and Turboglide ($725–$6,209 adjusted!!), and gross horsepower ratings were just 5 hp behind the injected Chevy (245 versus 250). So the Ford offered a pretty compelling blend of performance and price, at least relative to the Chevrolet.
Like the Chevrolet, the Ford was dinged for losing some of its handling feel in the quest for a smoother ride. However, MT’s testers liked how the Fairlane 500 responded on the highway, and were complimentary about the brakes. Motor Trend also felt the 312 offered a strong power without undue fuel consumption. Where the Ford was slammed was in built quality. MT called it “startlingly bad” and cautioned readers to check any new Ford carefully for assembly quality before making a purchase. In the context of 1957 automotive journalism, this was brutal honesty and must have miffed the honchos in the newly opened Ford Glass House headquarters building.
Praise was poured on the Plymouth. Motor Trend’s editors felt the combination of handling, responsiveness and ride comfort was first rate. MT also praised the 301 4V V8 with the pushbutton TorqueFlite–a powertrain combination that cost $260 ($2,227 adjusted), undercutting both the performance engines from Ford and Chevrolet in price, while offering pretty similar performance figures in the testing. There were some nitpicks around minor build quality issues, and the brakes were still thought to be lacking, but overall it was a strong endorsement.
Of course, the test car was probably specially prepared, so no doubt was significantly better than virtually all other 1957 Plymouth products. The harsh reality was that customer cars were soon roundly and loudly criticized for all manner of issues, including terrible build quality, premature rust and even snapping torsion bars on the front suspension. It was a tragic shame that the new Forward Look cars, so impressive in both style and handling, wound up being executed so poorly.
But in the glow of early reviews like this 3-way comparison test, clearly Plymouth was the winner, though Motor Trend of course never came out quite that strongly in favor of Mopar. From there, but also left unsaid, Ford came in second, poor build quality notwithstanding. America’s champ, the Chevrolet, found itself on the unexpected receiving end of some thinly veiled critiques. But Motor Trend being Motor Trend, everyone was a winner, and in reality, buyers of two of the three brands would have gotten their money’s worth over the long haul.
Not just three makes, but essentially three basic cars commanded half of sales. A very different world then.
I wasn’t aware of the Chevy Turboglide until the other day, and don’t know what its life span was at Chevy. I don’t recall it from the ’60s.
The Turboglide was available through the 1961 model year. LINK
1961 was the last year. Many were swapped out for Powerglides in later years.It was rare to find one back in the day; I used to look for a TG shift quadrant as I gazed at cars back in the 60s, and I only remember seeing one or two.
that’s one thing people tend to forget or don’t realize at all. Back then, Chevy basically only sold three cars. The 150/210/Bel Air, the Sedan Delivery/Nomad/Townsman, and the Corvette.
That’s it.
contrast to today, when Chevrolet sells the Spark, Sonic, Cruze, Malibu, Impala, Volt, Camaro, SS, and Corvette. Add the imminent Bolt and that’s 10 distinct cars. If we include CUVs (since that’s what a lot of car buyers are going to) then it’s 13.
3 vs. 13. No wonder it’s getting so expensive to play in this business.
GM globally sold many sizes of cars priced at or below Chevrolet levels we had choices from Vauxhall and Holden with six or in Vauxhalls case four cylinder engines, in 57
Ford was the same here the US Custom model in sedan or Ranchwagon was the top ofthe range with Zodiac,Zephyr range in six cylinder from the UK priced under them and the four cylinder Consul Prefect Anglia & Popular priced even lower
I’m talking US market only.
Those cars were sold in the US at least the UK cars were both from Ford and GM.
Turboglide was horrific. Total engineering fail. My aunt & uncle had one in a 1960 Impala convertible which was swapped out for a Powerglide.
Genital Motors had more than a few engineering fails. But because everybody likes the ’57 Chevy, they tend to get overlooked. The 1980 X-car was a major engineering fail, but it seems nobody to this day cares.
Not really that extraordinary to have over 50 percent of the market. Three makes still have over 40 percent of the market for private cars and trucks.
I love reading these period reviews. The Plymouth is the one of the three that I have some familiarity with. A careful reading of the review confirms that these things had a really willowy structure, with a shaking hood and plenty of quivers and rattles. These things would be much improved by 59 and pretty much a thing of the past once the 1960 Unibody came along. My 59 (a Fury sedan, much like this one) was a really pleasant car to drive that felt much newer in its dynamics than it really was.
That Chevy is one oddly equipped car. I guess when you have the “old maid” of the three, might as well send the one with the dual 4 barrels. 🙂 And boy did they turn out to be wrong about the Turboglide. And also wrong about Chevy easily cruising back to its No. 1 sales spot.
You can tell they were really disappointed in the way the Ford was put together. And who wouldn’t be? The inability to close a rear door in a 4 door sedan with a window rolled up is a real mystery. It is interesting how the big Ford’s fortunes dropped from 1957-59 when it was at or right behind the top spot to 1960-64 when the big Ford was miles behind its Chevy counterpart in sales.
The 1957 Ford was the model that, according to Lee Iacocca in his first book, drew dealer complaints about the rear doors popping open on hardtop sedans when traversing railroad crossings.
The 1958 Ford features grooves in the roof, a hood scoop and indentations in the trunk lid, all of which improved the rigidity of body panels. The workmanship was also better, given the lower production.
Apparently, when the 1957s debuted, Ford, just like Chrysler, was caught with very strong demand for its new models, and was thus building them as fast as possible early in the model year. Giving workers TWO types of Fords to build also didn’t help assembly quality.
And the Ford was burning over a quart of oil every 300 miles!
The picture of all the crooked fits in the door area is so bad it makes you why a better example wasn’t provided, they couldn’t have all been this bad, you would think.
But Geeber points out the ’57’s rear doors wouldn’t always stay closed in everyday use. A good reason for this Ford being equipped with seat belts, though probably only in the front.
Passage of time has proved the Chevy the most durable over the long haul. Somebody at GM had a good sense of humor putting the near race engine and nothing else in the four door family car.
I love the excessive use of the word “hot” in every variety under the sun!
If only they had know what an Icon the 57 (Chevy) would become! What an era!
Todays Camaro offers the V8 SS version for $11,000 more than the standard engine, so the adjusted price for the optional engines seem low.
The Camaro SS is a major mechanical upgrade from nose to tail, plus other styling and amenities. It’s the difference between a standard One Fifty utility sedan and a Black Widow, not just improving the engine.
I don’t know what to make of the adjusted price. For the Camaro and Impala, the V6 is about $1000 to $1500 extra. The cost of a 1957 Chevrolet was about $2200 to $2400 or so depending on the model. So this engine is about 20-25% of the base price. 20% of the SS price is around $6-7000. So what I was getting at is that adjusting the price of an optional engine is meaningless.
This confirms my preference for the ’55 and ’56 Chevy over the ’57, and not just for styling reasons. Everyone was going to softer suspensions, to the detriment of handling. Of course HD suspension was optional. Even 15″ wheels and tires. Everything to turn a Chevy into a NASCAR racer was available either as a factory option or over the counter. But that’s hardly relevant.
One of my regrets is not having any wheel time in any Mopar of this era. I think the oldest one was a Dodge 880, but that was from like ’64. Their dynamic superiority was so universally acknowledged.
The 880 probably drove a lot like one of the Forward Look versions would have, only the 880 would have been a MUCH stiffer structure. My 59 felt much like later ones in terms of steering, brakes and general all around handling.
Previously, I’d posted comments here and other sites saying “I’m sick of 57 Chevys”.
Now, after reading these new car articles, I remember how much I loved them when they were still common 2nd hand cars in the 60’s, and then became legends. Good to read about them as well built cars, and long term, not being “all new” helped resale and longevity.
What a great read. Would not surprise me if the Ford was the only one not “specially prepared”. Sure doesn’t sound like it was. I bet a hour or so of some basic body adjustments would have gone a long way towards the perceived build quality. I pity the ’57 Chryco buyer. A dual quad, Powerglide 4 door sedan?? Huh? Not aunt Ida’s first choice, no doubt. Typical GM; give the magazine hacks a rig no one will ever see in the wild to pump up the performance numbers and their ego.
I think it was more someone at GM had a good sense of humor, no one in their right mind would order a base trim family sedan with a race-ready engine, as 67Conti said in an above comment.
Someone did…there was at least one 4 door Hemi Coronet built. I personally saw a 4 door Savoy with a Max Wedge.
Someone ordered a 4 door Impala with the 409/409…and 3 on the tree.
Will it last a long time? Nice question. As I recall from around 1970, the Chevy won easily. Even though BelAir sold best, the plainer models of Chevy were EVERYWHERE, while Fords and Plymouths were already growing rare.
In regard to suspension changes for the 1957 Chevrolet compared to previous years, there wasn’t a big change to soften the suspension as many think. When comparing the spring rates for all three years, there is actually very little difference. Although there were usually 8 or 9 front spring part numbers, this was mostly to account for different weights of different versions of the car. There were only two or three front spring rates and about four rear spring rates available for each of the years.
Spring Rates:
1955
Front: 311 in/lb, 338 in/lb
Rear: 112 in/ln, 126 in/lb, 144 in/lb, 177 in/lb
1956
Front: 285 in/lb, 311 in/lb, 340 in/lb
Rear: 112 in/lb, 126 in/lb, 138 in/lb, 165 in/lb
1957
Front: 311 in/lb, 340 in/lb
Rear: 112 in/lb, 120 in /lb, 138 in/lb, 165 in/lb
As we can see, there is little variation is the spring rates over the years. Keep in mind these are the springs for all models, including the wagons which would use the stiffest rear springs. The variation in the spring rate at the front wheel is quite small, due to the suspension geometry of the 55-57 Chevrolet.
Further chassis refinements for 1957 included the frames front cross-member to side-member braces were redesigned to make the front section of the frame stronger and more rigid. Lower control arm ball joints were redesigned for improved durability, and switched to a cast socket verses the stamped socket used previously. The rear springs were mounted in a more horizontal position to attain “zero steer” with a driver and passenger in the front seat. This was achieved by raising the front leaf spring mount approx. 1/2″. The leaf springs were also changed from negative to positive camber leaf springs to help compensate for the smaller diameter wheels. And the front and rear shocks were recalibrated (likely for a softer ride).
Another important change with the switch to 14″ wheels, was Chevrolet lowered the recommended tire pressure to 22 PSI. I believe this may have had a significant impact of the handling “feel” of a ’57 Chevrolet. Based on all these facts, I would say the softer “feel” of the ’57 Chevrolet was likely due to the lower tire pressures and softer shock calibration, both of which could be easily changed.
My ’57 Chevy handled pretty well…BUT I was running radials, 14″ in front, 15″ rear. I was 24 years old, I thought the rake was cool…
That Chevy was an oddball, dual quads/Powerglide in a 4 door hardtop. The Plymouth probably had the best all-around powertrain for a plain-jane 4 door, Poly-head and a 3 speed Torqflite.
On the 1957 Chevrolet, the forced air vent intakes, as noted in the review, were in the headlight buckets. Besides sucking in fumes, their screening was too coarse and let bugs enter the car.
My family’s 1957 Chevrolet Two-Ten wagon…bought new…was no paragon of reliability. Its Blue Flame Six punched out valve spring caps three times and broke a valve once. We noticed that the rocker arms looked awfully dry, poorly lubricated. An aftermarket valve train lubrication system cured that and there were no more valve failures. One of the four doors rusted out. This was a San Francisco car (nowhere near Ocean Beach) its whole life, so why it rusted, we still don’t know. Front wheel bearings wore out about as rapidly as I wear out socks. The upper and lower tailgates rattled and squeaked. The upper one would slip past the latches holding it up on its struts and it would drop unpredictably, sometimes when loading cargo.
Had it been ordered with a 265 or 283 V8, the problems with the hoary old Six would have been avoided, but not the problems with the CAR.
I’m astonished at the obvious ergonomic shortcomings for the driver and passengers – as large as these cars are, none of the humans look comfortable. Build quality absolutely sucked. A 1957 VW must have been a revelation with VW’s consistent build quality, although I doubt many cross-shopped these 3 and a Beetle. Even a Renault Dauphine would have been a step up.
My dad’s first new car was a 1957 Belvidere II. It made it all the way to 1966 in the salty northeast, so something has to be said for that. Truthfully I remember little about the car except the color and fins. His 1961 Chrysler made it to 1970. Both were replaced with Fords, a Ranch Wagon and Torino respectively.
It’s a lot of fun reading these old comparos….
Dad bought Plymouth Sport Suburban off the showroom for 1959. It was Bittersweet with a white top powered by a power pack 318 with limited slip (3.31 IIRC).
Every option (even the worthless auto headlight dimmer) was there to include the ‘power rear-view mirror’.
After getting it home, Dad noticed that the motor was not sitting down in the engine bay; one side was cocked (this was easily seen by looking at the insulation pad that was in the hood).
Even though the car was bought and operated in Houston, there were no rust issues (but the car was always garaged; so maybe that was why).
What I remember about build quality. The glovebox door always hung partially open; why Dad never complained about this fault was a mystery.
The A/C unit was over-matched by the oppressively hot, humid weather! He was promised that rear air (the only lacking option) would be retro-fitted–this never happened!
It was driven until the odometer turned 99,000 miles where it was traded.
Love the details in these old road tests. How many turns of the crank it takes to open or close the window!
What is this “crank” you speak of?
Ruhh…yeah, I’ll say! Half a gallon of oil in 575 miles?! Even for a 1950s engine not yet bedded in, calling that an indication of shoddy quality is being ridiculously polite—especially in context of 1 quart/974 miles for the Chev and zero top-up needed for the Plymouth in 808 miles.
My parents had a 57 Plymouth 2 door. The got it used, probably 1 or 2 years old. I was pretty young, so I don’t know what options it had except for the push button automatic. It was the first automatic they had and I really liked the buttons. I do remember that it broke a torsion bar. I think it snapped while it was sitting in the driveway, which does not make much sense to me now. I also remember that it used to stall due to carburetor icing, which really annoyed my mother.
My aunt and uncle had a 57 Ford wagon. What I remember about it was that it was the first car I was in that seat belts. My uncle was an aeronautical engineer and worked on Mosquito planes during the war, so maybe that was where he came across set belts.
I must say, I’d have been lost in the new car market in 1957. To many, it’s the golden age, but I see nothing here that appeals to me. I’d have probably held on to a used Plymouth Cranbrook and hoped for better in the 60s. Since I love early 60s Fords, that would’ve been well worth the wait.
Had I been forced to choose, I guess a 2 door Chevy with 6-in-a-row + 3-on-the-tree.
The late 50s cars were just too over-the-top for me, really. I suppose I prefer more conservative designs.
You’re not alone. I’d much prefer a ’56 Plymouth over a ’57.
Styling, I agree…but the suspension is VASTLY superior for 57.
In design, absolutely; the new-for-’57 Torsion-Aire suspension was a giant improvement. Plus, ball joints rather than kingpins, etc. But the shoddy ’57 build quality affected the suspension, too; torsion bars broke, etc.
I looked it up and yes, I do too.
I still love the “old lady mobile” Cranbrook, although I’m sure as you and the other John noted, the driving experience undoubtedly got better as time went on. That (admittedly left-over) Art Deco look here and there just appeals to me more than hooded headlights and fins.
1960 would’ve brought the Valiant and the Falcon compacts. I’m not sure how I’d have felt about the strange looking Valiant then, but I love it now. I did like the Falcon as well, but getting back to “standard” cars, the ’61-’64 Galaxie has my heart.
As much and as many times as I have slammed the Powerglide transmission here (much to Paul’s irritation); i would take it in a heartbeat over that Gawd-awful Turboglide transmission.
Add in the choice of the superlative in 1957 “automotive reference standard” Mopar 3 speed Torqueflite automatic and the choice becomes a “No Brainer”.