Vintage Review: CARS Magazine Asks “What Car Should You Buy?” For 1960

 

In June 1960, CARS magazine presented their picks for the best cars available in the U.S. in each price segment, from compacts to luxury cars. They also presented their pick for the best overall buy of 1960, with a surprising result.

CARS: The Automotive Magazine was a lesser-known ’60s car magazine, launched by Royal Publications in late 1959. It was renamed Hi-Performance CARS in October 1965 and survived under that name through December 1983. In its HPC era, the magazine became fixated on dragstrip performance cars, often modified semi-stock cars like Baldwin-Motion Camaros, but in this period, it still covered normal passenger cars.

 

CARS rated the Studebaker Lark the best in its price range:

STUDEBAKER LARK now offers a convertible and a 4-door wagon, giving it a uniquely complete line. Style remains the same as last year, cutting depreciation, and mechanical “bugs” have been eliminated. Our tests showed Lark to be a top-notch over-the-road car with admirable performance. It’s our selection for best compact car.

The editors explained the overall rationale of the feature:

CARS are fun to drive—but testing and evaluating them is demanding and difficult work. It takes engineering knowledge as well as driving skill. Weighing the advantages and drawbacks of any one car is a big job—and comparing all of those manufactured in the United States is a giant-sized headache.

This year, in particular, the task has been made unusually difficult by the introduction of the compacts and other all-new designs. The potential purchaser with a brand-new 1960 model in mind is fortunate in the sense that he has a wide variety from which to choose—but the size of this array is in itself confusing.

It’s obvious that when you invest in a new car, you don’t want to depend on guesses, luck or hearsay evidence. In the majority of cases, even the knowledge that a particular make was good last year, or has a good reputation generally, won’t help you—the changes in this year’s models have been too sweeping.

We believe, here at CARS, that we’ve assembled the greatest line-up of test drivers to be found anywhere. We have such top-notch men as Joe H. Wherry, Alex Walordy, Jerry Titus, Jeffries Oldmann, Duncan Maxwell and others handling regular test assignments for us; and we’ll add to the list as we find others who meet all of the necessary qualifications.

These are men who know their cars—and on these pages you’ll find their choices for 1960. The entire staff of CARS stands behind them. It was not easy to choose the best, but we believe we’ve done so. At any rate, we stand behind these choices.

The table on the final page gives each make and series an “economy rating,” which the notes explain like this:

Economy rating attempts to take all factors (gasoline mileage, repair costs, trade-in value, etc.) except original purchase price into account, but must of necessity be largely subjective. E means excellent. G-good, F-Fair. P-Poor.

Because the table isn’t terribly easy to read, I’ll also summarize those ratings as we go along.

The text in the blue section reads:

THE COMPACTS have taken the country by storm. Certainly, there’s wisdom in these sensibly-sized packages for many drivers. The question of which one to buy, however, is doubly hard to answer because each is attractive in a different way.

The Falcon, for instance, would rate highest in economy and ease of maintenance. The Valiant has the edge as peppiest performer, and the Corvair should have considerable appeal to those who live in colder climates. The Rambler is a very sound design, though it is beginning to show its age slightly. For most drivers, we believe, the Lark is the best bet.

The text in the blue section reads:

FALCON, Ford’s compact entry, offers unexcelled economy and appealingly clean styling. Its 6-cylinder engine is typically Ford, and should make upkeep simple. A good choice if a budget is the decisive factor.

 

The CARS economy ratings for the compacts (including the Comet, which they inexplicably grouped with specialty cars) were:

• Chevrolet Corvair: Good
• Comet: Good
• Ford Falcon: Excellent
• Rambler American: Excellent
• Studebaker Lark VI: Excellent
• Studebaker Lark VIII: Good
• Valiant: Good

The photo captions read:

 

“PLYMOUTH appears only face-lifted on the surface, but has switched to unitized construction, a major improvement. Engine options run from an economical six to a big 310-hp ram-tube V8. Tops in its field, it would be good in any.”

 

“FORD looks completely new, but mechanical changes are not extensive. Ride and handling have been improved considerably. Summed up, comfort and looks are the selling points here.”

Ironically, many buyers regarded the looks of the 1960 Ford as its weakest point: The full-size models lost considerable ground to the unexpectedly popular 1959 models.

The text in the blue section reads, “VALIANT is most expensive to purchase of the compacts, but offers the hottest performance, good handling, and the comfort and roominess of many larger cars. Its DC alternator is a nice item.”

 

The Valiant did have an alternator rather than a DC generator, but calling it a “DC alternator” is semantically awkward: Alternators generate alternating current, but then use a commutator to rectify the output to direct current.

The main text reads:

HERE’S a significant multiplication the low-priced three of former years have been doubled! For most buyers, however, Chevrolet, Ford and Plymouth still represent the major field of choice. Except for styling the Dodge Dart is identical to Plymouth in all important ways—and will cost you more. The others in the field all have their partisans—but Plymouth’s new unit construction has eliminated many of this always excellent car’s faults to give it a definite edge.

 

“CHEVROLET’S styling has been modified; we like it better. Engine and driveline options are profuse, and should include something to please most buyers.”

 

“DODGE DART is a Plymouth under the skin, but many will feel it gives them more prestige, list price is only $20 more, but you may find bigger discounts on comparable Plymouths.”

 

“CHECKER introduces the Superba, low-powered but fabulously roomy. We’ll have a full test next issue.”

 

“RAMBLER now offers a 3-seat station wagon. Other changes are minor but generally highly worthwhile.”

The CARS economy ratings for the “Low-Priced Six” were:

• Checker Superba: Good
• Chevrolet Six: Good
• Chevrolet V-8: Good
• Dodge Matador: Good
• Dodge Polara: Good
• Dodge D-500: Fair
• Ford Six: Good
• Ford Fairlane V-8: Good
• Ford Galaxie V-8: Good
• Plymouth Six: Excellent
• Plymouth Savoy and Belvedere 8: Good
• Plymouth Fury: Good
• Rambler Six: Excellent
• Rambler Rebel V-8: Good

Pontiac was the CARS top pick in the medium-price field:

 

They said, “PONTIAC continues its wide-track suspension, with numerous refinements to make it an even better road car than it was last year. This is a beautifully-built machine, with all sorts of luxurious touches you’d expect to cost more.”

 

“DODGE too has gone to unit body-frame construction, and uses it to achieve greater strength and solidity. Ram induction gives lots of punch, and the overall size has actually been decreased.”

 

“BUICK styling is more conservative than before; underneath, a single muffler replaces four. Engine options are plentiful, but the biggest news is that you can use regular gas in one of them.”

The main text reads:

THE GROUP of cars which must be included in the “medium-priced” field is a large one and covers a lot of territory. The actual prices begin at slightly more than S2600 and run on up to well over $4000—the most expensive Chrysler model, in fact, will take you into the $5000 bracket. Nevertheless, for rating purposes the similarities between all of these cars are bigger than the differences. Generally speaking, sales in this field have dropped a good deal since the beginning of the 1960 model year. This may mean that you can get a bargain on one of these makes if you shop around for discounts. If not, chances are you’ll find that these cars don’t offer you enough more than the lower-priced ones.

If most of your driving is of the high-speed turnpike variety, however, one of these big jobs may be a good investment for you. In that case, our experts feel you’d do best with a Pontiac. Although the lowest-priced Pontiac is also the lowest-priced car in the field, it offers many luxurious touches, not to mention practically unbeatable performance.
a
The others all have their good points, of course—but check prices and trade-in values carefully before you buy!

Here are more of the individual judgments:

 

“DE SOTO is another terrific performer. The top-model Adventurer comes close to matching the big 300F in some ways, without being as gaudy.”

 

“MERCURY, stylewise, is perhaps 1960’s most improved car. Frame and suspension [sic] have been beefed up, but performance does not match some others.”

 

“AMBASSADOR by Rambler should not be overlooked. Here too the basic design is unchanged, but the refinements for comfort and convenience are many.”

 

“CHRYSLER prices cover a spread of almost $2000, so you can choose between a little luxury or a lot. Quietness and roominess are the plus values.”

 

“OLDSMOBILE also offers a regular-gas engine, but there’s plenty of plush for those who want it. There are 17 bodies in the three lines.”

The CARS economy ratings for the medium-priced cars were:

• Buick LeSabre: Fair
• Buick Invicta: Fair
• Buick Electra: Fair
• Buick Electra 225: Fair
• Chrysler Windsor: Fair
• Chrysler Saratoga: Fair
• Chrysler New Yorker: Fair
• De Soto Fireflite: Good
• De Soto Adventurer: Good
• Mercury Monterey: Fair
• Mercury Montclair: Fair
• Mercury Park Lane: Fair
• Oldsmobile Dynamic 88: Good
• Oldsmobile Super 88: Fair
• Oldsmobile 98: Fair
• Pontiac Catalina: Fair
• Pontiac Ventura: Fair
• Pontiac Star Chief: Fair
• Pontiac Bonneville: Fair
• Rambler Ambassador: Good

The main text reads:

THE CARS grouped on this page are all individuals in their own right; no two are alike, or even similar. The Comet, for instance, is bigger than the compacts, but smaller than anything else except Rambler. It will take some time to tell exactly where it should fit in. The Corvette is still the only true sports car made by an American manufacturer; while the Hawk is a sports-type car that can double as a family vehicle. The Thunderbird has prestige and luxury. Our personal favorite here is the Chrysler 300F, but this is admittedly a subjective judgment.

Putting the Comet among the specialty cars was a weird choice. In 1960, there weren’t yet any domestic intermediates (unless you counted the Rambler Ambassador), so it seemed to fall between two stools, but I would still have counted it as a compact, especially since it offered only a six-cylinder engine.

 

“CHRYSLER 300F is a spectacular road locomotive with acceleration to spare. Unfortunately, the biggest changes have made the interior fancier but less functional.”

 

“STUDEBAKER HAWK, a real dual-purpose car, has a bigger engine, heavy-duty transmission, better brakes.”

 

“CORVETTE is little changed, but has myriad engine options, all planned for high-performance addicts.”

 

“COMET, Ford’s newest, is bigger than Falcon outside, but offers very little more in capacity and power.”

 

“THUNDERBIRD has sunroof and folding hardtop models at higher prices, otherwise is hardly changed at all.”

The Thunderbird never did offer a folding hardtop, and the Ford “retrac” wasn’t continued for 1960, so CARS was off-base there.

The CARS economy ratings for the specialty cars (excluding the Comet) were:

• Chevrolet Corvette: Fair
• Chrysler 300-F: Poor
• Ford Thunderbird: Poor
• Studebaker Hawk: Fair

CARS judged the 1960 Lincoln best in its price range:

 

The main text reads:

ALTHOUGH we know the top-priced cars in each manufacturer’s line are out of reach of most of our readers, we tested all of them. Undeniably, they are all fine automobiles. The Lincoln and Lincoln Continental impressed us most. It would be hard to find better cars than these anywhere.

Here are their individual judgments:

 

“LINCOLN and Continental share a new roof line and Hotchkiss rear suspension for better ride and handling. They cost plenty, but are worth it.”

Contemporary buyers disagreed — Lincoln sales for 1960 were terrible, and resale values were poor.

 

“IMPERIAL’S designers concentrated on increased comfort. Strangely, car does not share the unitized construction of other Chryslers.”

 

“CADILLAC retains its traditional elegance, with subtle changes to make it even more tasteful. Prices climb to more than $13,500 at top.”

The only 1960 Cadillac that cost more than $10,000 was the limited-production Eldorado Brougham, whose body was built in Italy by Farina. Only 101 Broughams were built for 1960, and they were of little relevance to most Cadillac buyers.

The CARS economy ratings for luxury cars were:

• Cadillac Series 62: Fair
• Cadillac Fleetwood 60 Special: Fair
• Cadillac Fleetwood 75: Poor
• Cadillac Eldorado Seville: Fair
• Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz: Poor
• Imperial: Fair
• Lincoln & Continental: Fair

(If you’re wondering, in 1960, the Cadillac de Ville was still considered a Series 62 sub-series, which is why it wasn’t listed separately.)

The main text on the bottom half of the page reads:

SO MANY CARS are now being imported into and sold in the United States that it has been impossible for us to test and rate them all. Obviously, there are excellent foreign automobiles in all price ranges available—the Jaguar and Rover reported on in this issue are examples. There are dozens of other good buys, and we will do our best to publish a complete survey in an early issue.

There is one car, however, that all members of our staff consider spectacularly good in every department. That is the Swedish Volvo. Either model rates as a truly outstanding buy.

 

“VOLVO wisely continues to offer the older PV544 as well as the new 122S. The former is lighter and has slightly better performance, but many people will prefer the 4-door model’s more modern look and greater roominess. Prices (in New York) are $2342, $2807 respectively.”

 

CARS didn’t present economy ratings for the Volvos.

Finally, they reached their unexpected conclusion:

 

They said:

THE LARK also rates first overall among all American cars.

There are many reasons for this choice, but the primary one is that the Lark will do anything and go anywhere the larger cars will, at a lower cost.

Also important is the fact that no other American car offers as wide and sensibly-planned a range of models. Lark truly has a model for every taste and purpose.

The Lark is styled for both today and tomorrow, and engineered for hard, economical use. For 1960, its designers concentrated on eliminating the bugs from the already-good 1959, so Lark will be as trouble-free as any car made. On any basis, this is a tough car to beat. ♦ ♦

Selecting the Lark as best overall buy probably made more sense at the time than it does in retrospect. The 1960 Lark was a conventional design and a known quantity, where the other domestic compacts were all-new and still unproven. The Studebaker offered a wider range of body styles, as well as the option of V-8 power, which no other rival yet had.

 

However, looking back on it now, the Lark was in a weaker position than I think the CARS editors realized: It was essentially a cut-down version of the 1953 Studebaker sedan, which hadn’t been cutting-edge even when it was fresher, and since the Studebaker-Packard board increasingly saw the automobile business as a bad bet, there wasn’t much money to update it. Studebaker had a weaker dealer network than most rivals, and rumors of its possible demise didn’t help buyer confidence. 1960 was really the last remotely good year for U.S. Studebaker sales, which fell by about half for 1961, and the Lark ended up with weaker residual values than most of its rivals.

 

Today, the Lark survival rate seems to be surprisingly good for an early ’60s compact, but its window of competitiveness was short. I wonder how CARS would have rated it if they’d known the Studebaker factory in South Bend would shut down in less than four years!

Which of these cars would you have chosen in 1960?