Without question, the stars of the 1957 season came from Chrysler Corporation. Virgil Exner’s stunning designs simply clobbered everything else on the market. For buyers seeking newness, glamour and the most modern expression of longer, lower and wider, no other company could top Chrysler’s offerings. Engineering was first-rate too, with robust engines and transmissions, along with new torsion bar suspensions that provided better road feel and handling than any domestic competitor. Even mighty GM was startled by the newfound strength of the perennial #3 U.S. automaker. Of course, there was a dark side to the new products–abysmal quality–which would lead to long-term brand damage. But when the cars were shiny and new, making their first appearances in Motor Trend and on showroom floors, there was nothing but wonder.
Chrysler brand cars wore the new Forward Look styling especially well: the simple detailing really helped showcase the beauty of the clean, sweeping design. Ironically, Chrysler was the only division in Mopar’s stable to post a sales decline for ’57–volume was down by almost 5% to 122,273. Perhaps some of this dip could be attributed to in-showroom competition: I’m sure some New Yorker shoppers couldn’t resist moving up to Imperial, while frugal Windsor prospects may have been tempted by the much-lower-priced but still beautiful Plymouth Belvederes. Or maybe the bad word-of-mouth about the terrible quality of the new designs hit Chrysler first…
DeSoto had been slowly declining for years, but 1957 proved to be a short-term shot in the arm for sales–one last hurrah before the division died in November 1960. The dramatic styling undoubtedly helped; DeSoto offered a particularly nice rendition of the Forward Look. An entry-level Firesweep model was added to the line-up, targeting the large pool of price-conscious buyers, and the new model wound up accounting for 40% of total 1957 DeSoto sales. The problem was that the Firesweep was simply a Dodge with different trim, and showcased the muddled brand positioning that ultimately would sink DeSoto.
Dodge’s rendition of the Forward Look (referred to as “Delta Wing” by Motor Trend, but called “Swept-Wing” in divisional marketing materials) was the edgiest and most aggressive of the lot. The bold image helped give Dodge a big lift in the tough mid-priced market segment, and sales grew 17% to 281,360 while market share increased by 14%, at a time when all other non-Mopar medium-priced competitors were losing ground.
1957 was the Year of the Imperial. For the first (and last) time, Chrysler’s top luxury marque was a real contender in the quest for high-end buyers. The new design brought greater styling differentiation than ever compared to less expensive Chryslers, allowing the Imperial to really stand out from the crowd. Curved side window glass was also an Imperial exclusive and pioneered a look that would become commonplace in the 1960s. Interiors were particularly lavish, while power was smooth and strong. In sum, it was an aggressive push into the luxury market. Sales soared, rising 251% over 1956 to a record 37,593 Imperials–just 3,530 units shy of Lincoln. Even King Cadillac felt the heat, losing sales (down 5%) and market share (down 6%), so undoubtedly some Cadillac intenders decided to go for the Imperial instead.
Sweeping new styling led to soaring sales heights for Plymouth: the division regained its 3rd place ranking in the industry with a 33% increase in volume over 1956. It was a bold play in a segment that had historically been more about value than flash, though for ’57 Plymouth delivered both, with proven engines, excellent transmissions and torsion bar front suspensions to go with industry leading looks. But then there was that unavoidable Achilles Heel of horrific quality control…
1957 represented the best of times and the worst of times for Chrysler Corporation. The market reaction to the new designs was impressive–Chrysler Corporation market share surged, climbing a full 4 percentage points in one year, from 17% in 1956 to 21% for 1957. Sadly, the wildly popular 1957 products were rushed to market and weren’t ready for prime time. Production models were riddled with defects and poor workmanship, and showed an alarming tendency for premature rust. Many, if not most, of the new and repeat buyers that flocked to Mopar for 1957 were bitterly disappointed with the quality of their cars. That damage to Chrysler’s long-standing quality reputation was severe and long-lasting, and subsequent years would see dramatic sales declines as a result.
For my automotive alternate universe, however, I love to ponder the “what ifs” that could have been. Imagine what today’s automotive landscape would look like, for example, if these Forward Look Chrysler products had been as well-built as they were well-styled. What if the market share gains achieved for 1957 hadn’t abated and had stayed relatively strong (the impact of the 1958 recession not withstanding) filling Chrysler Corporation’s coffers with profits? Could Mopar have genuinely challenged Ford, or even GM, for market position if things had all gone as planned? We’ll never know… But at least we’ll forever enjoy the Forward Look cars, flaws and all.
These were truly a great leap of development. The styling set the industry on its ear for a few years and the chassis engineering set down some performance perimeters that would not be met by GM and Ford for perhaps a decade. I still recall my 1959 Plymouth Fury as one of the most pleasant driving big cars I have ever owned.
In my personal alternate universe, I imagine these coming out in 1958, with an additional full year of development resulting in then-traditional Mopar quality. Alas, we will never know. I am not sure that Chrysler has ever completely recovered from the 1957 quality fiasco.
I’ve thought that too, JP. 1957 has never been that far in the mirror. Like the start of the 70s and the Vega for GM.
The 1957 quality fiasco did hurt Chrysler for years, although not all of the corporation’s quality problems were because these cars had been rushed to market. After William Newberg was named president of the corporation in 1960, it was discovered that he had financial interests in some Chrysler suppliers. It was part of a larger scandal where some vendors were shipping subpar components to Chrysler, while executives looked the other way. Newberg was fired within five months of ascending to the presidency, although not before he mucked up the planned 1962 full-size cars.
Chrysler was also trying to improve the productivity of its factories. One way to do this was to get more work out of the same number of workers – and Chrysler management wasn’t using the principles of the Toyota Lean Production System. You can therefore imagine how popular management’s efforts were with the UAW. Chrysler did succeed, but at the cost of build quality.
The factories weren’t very well managed, either. At one car show, the owner of a 1957 Dodge Custom Royal sedan told me of speaking with a dealer who toured the Dodge factory (Dodge Main?) in 1957 or 1958. This dealer noticed a worker standing under a car body, moving a wand that was supposed to be spraying undercoating on the car body.
There was one problem – nothing was coming out of the wand!
When the dealer asked the worker why he was simply moving the wand back-and-forth without applying any undercoating, he simply replied that the union contract required him to make 12 sweeps under each car body. If factory management couldn’t ensure that his machine was actually filled with undercoating material, it wasn’t his problem!
At the Carlisle Chrysler Nationals, a police officer from western Pennsylvania regularly showed an all-original, 1957 Plymouth Belvedere four-door sedan that he bought from the estate of the original owner. It had about 20,000 miles on the odometer when he bought it around 1990. It was rust-free, but you could still see the poor body panel fit and sloppy paint job.
A friend’s dad bought a new 57 Plymouth and he called it the worst new car he ever bought, out of more then 50. He recalled window cranks falling off as he drove over railroad tracks. Years later, he drove my 59 Fury sedan and remarked how much tighter it felt than his 57, which had an unusually willowy structure.
Over on Allpar.com, I believe it is Curtis Redgap who wrote a series about his family’s dealership years. I remember that an elder member of the family who went to Detroit for new model introductions came back and predicted that 1957 cars would be a disaster based on what he saw. He turned out to be right.
In its assessment of the 1957 Plymouth, Consumer Reports said that its testers liked the handling and performance, but the car had lost the solid “feel” possessed by previous Plymouths.
My late father – who generally prided himself on keeping his cars looking like new for at least three to four years – traded his ’53 Chevy for a ’57 Plymouth. He then traded that in only two years later, for a ’59 Impala, so I assume he didn’t like the Plymouth for some reason. I’ll have to scan photos and post them; the car looks a bit ragged, even though relatively new.
After that, he progressed properly (and nearly perfectly) up the Sloanian ladder: ’63 Pontiac, ’67 Olds, then a ’68 Buick (a second car, when Mom started driving). He then settled back into the Olds camp by ’70, and stayed there until a disappointing Cadillac in ’84.
There is great coverage of the ’57 Forward Look development timeline in the biography of Virgil Exner by Peter Grist (Virgil Exner, Visioneer). Apparently, these Forward Look designs were originally intended for the ’58 model year, but Chrysler President Tex Colbert had ordered them pulled earlier and set the introduction date for the ’57 model year. Clearly that got ahead of the corporation’s ability to execute properly, so it was an extremely costly and damaging decision.
But, if that original timetable had stood, the impact to the industry would have been huge:
1) I do think the quality of the Forward Look cars would have been much, much better, so that aspect of Chrysler’s reputation would have stayed intact.
2) Though the new designs would have been launched into the 1958 recession, which would have been a damper, I still think they would have taken market share from Ford and GM.
3) The original ’55 Forward Look cars could have been nicely face-lifted for ’57 and would have still done OK, though I doubt those products would have gained Chrysler any share points that year. But at least the cars’ reputation would have remained golden.
4) Most importantly, GM designers wouldn’t have gotten a sneak peek at the dramatic new Chrysler products—the event that led to the design coup at GM that ousted Harley Earl and empowered Bill Mitchell. Without that design revolution at GM, they would have unavoidably introduced Earl’s vision for ’59, which from renderings and clays I’ve seen, looked like far uglier versions of the hideous and bloated ’58 GM products.
5) Exner suffered a heart attack in 1956, attributed in part to the stress of the accelerated timetable for the Forward Look cars. He was therefore out-of-commission during the key periods of styling development for the ’60 and ’61 cars—hence the design vision was muddled and the products were very odd looking, so Chrysler’s styling momentum was lost.
All told, you are so right that a ’58 launch for these Forward Look cars would have made a world of difference!
Very solid comments. I’ve heard of the Newberg scandal before, which likely played a part, but your comments about how things might have played out at GM are likely spot on. The stuff on GM’s boards for the initial ’59s would have looked very old school compared to the Mopars.
It seems like quality was damaged at all big three manufactures in the late ’50s. The race for radical annual changes proved too much, and by the early ’60s the manufacturers started tweaking basic body shells for 4-5 year spans – and quality improved dramatically.
“Imagine what today’s automotive landscape would look like, for example, if these Forward Look Chrysler products had been as well-built as they were well-styled.”
I think you have a very good point here, and I can see parallels with GM’s X-Bodies years later – they too, represented a bold step and, just the same, were afflicted with reliability issues. I have always maintained that a Chevy Citation would have been seen in a very different light today had it enjoyed the same reliability as the 60s Nova before it (or, perish the thought, as a Toyota).
Totally agree about the X-cars!
From a design standpoint, there was so much right about them: well-sized outside and remarkably roomy inside, efficient powertrains that allowed the cars to meet fuel economy standards, handsome styling with reasonable divisional differentiation. When they hit the market, they were showered with praise and buyer interest. But, just like the ’57 Mopars, initial sales were huge until the word began to get out about the subpar quality and engineering shortcuts. The resulting severe, long-term damage to GM’s reputation was equally as bad as what Mopar suffered through as a result of the ’57s.
Ours were good local assembly and higher price may have played a part in that, but there were many of these Mopars on the roads in NZ years ago ours of course were the Plymouth Savoy and Plodge Kingsway variety with flathead six manual but they were well reguarded in their day.
GN, you do a service by featuring these real time road tests and reports. They’re unsullied by decades of misinformation and rose tinted glasses. They provide a window into automotive journalism of the period and testing procedures.
Thanks for taking us back to a time when these were just real cars that people drove and before they were modded, restored to a museum quality, became trailer queens and high end auction fodder.
I have many of the 50s MT issues, but have never seen this one. Your efforts are appreciated.
I would disagree with your assertion that this is “journalism”. It’s propaganda — or advertising, if you want to avoid the P word — for Detroit. No critical thinking, no investigation, no testing, just a long ad copy.
The 57s are all “longer, lower, wider, with better features, bigger engines, increased roadability, sooo much better than last year’s cars, go buy ’em, buy ’em, buy ’em and keep up with the Joneses”. That was for GM, Ford and now Mopar — all the same drivel.
Don’t get me wrong, I love reading these. These guys know how to write the same thing over and over and still make it sound good. As a literary exercise, it’s fantastic and highly entertaining stuff. It avoids being overtly syrupy and manages to gloss over some of the cars’ shortcomings by ellipses or stating that most “normal” drivers (i.e. you, the reader) would not care/notice/need such a feature.
But aside from the technical aspects, which could be summed up in a 1/4 page sidebar, this is not what one might call journalism. There are no questions being raised, no doubts voiced, no real information being conveyed. Issues are very rarely and vaguely alluded to, and outright BS is pretty prevalent. Praising the workmanship on the DeSoto? Plymouths don’t wallow? Dodges don’t raise their butt in the sky when braking? Gimme a break.
I like classic cars and I like car literature. But period literature about cars (especially pre-70s) is usually low on info and high on bull.
Agree about the workmanship claims, but the handling and braking of these Mopars really were a revelation for a domestic car of that period. Compared to your typical 2016 vehicle, they may wallow and raise their back end during hard braking, but to people used to typical 1950s Detroit fare, they were taut and well-controlled.
Geeber, I agree. Going from the 1957 Chrysler to an similar year GM was striking. The 1957 Chrysler (and DeSoto Fireflite) were relatively firm (but not harsh) riding and quite stable in turns; there was minimal dive on braking and little squatting on take off.
There were, however, quite a lot of rattles if I recall.
A 1958 Olds 4 door (and its 1960 Olds 88 convertible replacement, and a 1961 Ventura) were cushy, leaning cars that did a lot of diving and squatting.
The GMs had few if any rattles.
Even the GM transmissions were kind of lackadaisical, gentle off the line, on the up shifts, and even in the kick downs (the 4 speed autos had a gentle mini-kickdown from 4 to 3). Of course the 1961 Ventura had the 3 speed Slim Jim Roto, so there was no mini-kickdown. I know some say the Slim Jim Roto really had 4 speeds, but I never felt more than 3.
Of course I was a Neanderthal teenager, and the subtlety of fluid passing straight through a stator was lost on me.
There was nothing gentle about the torqueflites.
The torqueflites felt like there was a direct connection from engine to wheels; up shifts were like sling shots and kick downs (3 to 2 especially) would rattle your teeth.
They shot off the line like scalded cats.
But, once above 55 mph, the GM’s larger cubic inch engines (389 and 394 cu. in.) usually could reel the Mopars back in and end up ahead. At least that was our opinion.
The Roto Hydra-Matic’s second gear ratio was actually very similar to third in the four-speed units and the three-two downshift worked in mostly the same way. The big gap was between first and second. In city speeds, the four-speed Hydra-Matic could kick down twice, whereas the three-speed would mostly bog unless you slowed down quite a bit. The Slim Jim’s torque multiplier wasn’t exactly a stator (although it served the same purpose), did nothing at all in second, and did very little in third.
Part of what makes these write-ups so interesting to me is the way they reflect society at the time. Look across a spectrum of “journalism” for all categories in the 1950s and they seemingly come from the same place. Occasionally writers can insert a subtle barb or two, but this writing was really about enticing the masses and driving the postwar prosperity engine. However, I will admit I do like to get swept away in the dreams they weave…
The buff book writing did get more critical in the 1970s and 1980s (at least at some titles)–and that clarity continued for a while. But now, once again, I’d argue that all U.S. buff books are really nothing but extended ads and are pretty useless. Aside from the endless drivel about exotic super cars, I get particularly turned off by the coverage of new Cadillacs, for example. In reality these current Caddies are OK but not great and in no way are they category leaders. Yet when you read the articles you would think that modern Cadillacs are the best vehicles ever produced anywhere by anyone, which they decidedly are not.
IMHO, the best car magazine available today comes from England. Check out CAR if you want the closest thing available to legitimately thoughtful automotive journalism.
I’ve read road tests of the new Cadillacs in Motor Trend, which has generally been the worst offender in this category. They like the vehicles, but I wouldn’t call the reviews fawning, and the reviewers have noted that the vehicles still need some work before they can be considered “the best” among all competitors.
Car and Driver has also called out the ATS for several faults that need to be addressed before the car can really hope to be top-rated in its particular class.
I was using a bit of 1950’s-style hyperbole about current Cadillac articles 🙂
I still think that the buff books currently “over rate” the Cadillacs, though yes, they do point out some faults and say the cars aren’t perfect. But… Automobile’s recent review of the XT5, for example, could have been written in 1957. The writer was practically gushing, yet that vehicle treads absolutely no new territory for the segment and lands mid-pack at best. The XT5 may be good compared to the SRX, but it’s hardly competitive with segment leaders. Yet all the buff books keep saying is that “Cadillac is soooo close…” or “Cadillac is back!” We’ve been hearing that for over a decade and it’s just not true.
This is true.
Unfortunately, you often have to read a comparison road test to get a true idea of how competitive a new entry really is in its respective segment.
Many times I’ve read the initial review a new vehicle that makes it sound like the greatest thing since sliced bread. Then we get a comparison test, and the knives come out, as it finishes mid-pack, or worse.
And, yes, Cadillac has been “coming back” since the early 1990s, with the debut of the new, fourth-generation Seville and the Northstar V-8.
I think that of the four surviving buff mags, Motor Trend has always been the one most likely to bend over and take it from the auto companies. They seem to always be slanted towards whomever has bought the most ad space recently.
R/T and C/D (I haven’t picked up a copy of Automobile lately as it was always too esoteric and high-brow for me) aren’t much better lately. Which is understandable since I understand they have to toe the line of whomever is wielding the money cudgel, but…they’re all tarnished.
The only time the magazines will call out the cars shortcomings with any directness is when it’s being replaced by it’s latest and greatest new model, which fixes all those problems they never talked about.
GN,
Don’t know where you live, but many of CAR’s best editors originally hailed from Australia or New Zealand and both CAR’s editors and Car&Driver editors used to put the Australian car mag WHEELS at the top of the heap…so to speak. I’ve only managed to read a few issues of WHEELS that I ran across online years ago.
But I agree completely that CAR is, and has always been, an excellent car magazine. I first “stumbled” upon CAR in the very early 70s, being pulled in by the covers that were drawings instead of the usual photos. I’ve been a regular reader (and at times a subscriber) for nearly 45 years.
Currently my favorite features are 1.) a series that was started over a year ago asking the question “if you are spending X amount of money, do you by new or nearly new. And 2.) a series of mini-tests of 4 similar vehicles that John Q. Average might buy.
For 45+ years, the photos and the magazine’s overall design have SET a standard.
I did read a few CAR and Wheels articles (mostly from the ’60s/’70s) — they’re very different in tone compared to American publications. Much more incisive and infused with humourous, almost sarcastic comments on the cars they tested. You do also find some humour in the US stuff, but it’s more, as GN rightly put it, “subtle barbs”.
My mother tongue is French and there was one seminal car mag that did some real critique and investigative car journalism: l’Auto-Journal. Its editor and founder, Andre Costa, was tired of reading rose-scented, insanely positive articles about cars he knew were either poorly built, unsafe or bad value for money. If you read the car press of the ’30s and ’40s, whether British, American or French, there was little difference, it was all hyper-positive tripe.
When L’Auto-Journal was started in 1950, they did real tests, comparing what the automakers claimed to the actual product, lambasting those who were blatantly lying, evaluating the cars according to the standards of their segment, and treating their readers as if they were adults capable of rational decision-making.
Costa and his journos also broke stories that automakers did not wish to see: they were blacklisted by Citroen (a notoriously cagey — even paranoid — company in those days) for years because of their scoops on the upcoming DS. But most automakers quickly realized that it was better for them to play ball with Costa than make an enemy out of his twice-monthly publication, which had acquired a huge readership by its first year.
Publishing of any kind is a tightrope. Income is mostly generated though ads, not sales, but circulation and therefore the quality of the content has a direct impact on the price of ads.
If you get into a cartel situation (R/T, C/D and MT, setting Automobiles to one side for being more of a pure “car porn” mag, in my view), there is a vested interest for the publishers to keep the status quo and minimize the amount of actual journalism. They don’t write what people want (or need) to know, but what the car industry wants to say.
The only way to break such a cartel is with an upstart new publication that challenges the status quo, siphons off readers from other mags and brings in new readers, as well as folks who had given up on the press altogether. Think Tesla and the Big Three. If it happened in the actual industry, it might happen in the industry press.
M/T glosses over the fact that the 3 row DeSoto wagon came with no spare tire or stowage space. Instead it came with Goodyear Captive-Aire “trouble proof” nylon tires. Way ahead of the times on this.
Suddenly it’s 2016!
To a large extent, issues like these were in a different category than the magazines’ actual reviews. When the new car issues were written, the editors’ hands-on experience with these cars was not terribly much different than a typical new car shopper’s: crawling around some well-prepared press cars, perhaps a brief test drive around the proving grounds, and pouring through a pile of brochures and press releases. Occasionally the manufacturer would provide a previous year’s model for comparison, but that was about it.
These articles here would probably have been written in August of 1956 or thereabouts (whenever Chrysler held its press introduction) for an on-sale date around the beginning of December. So, short of making snarky comments about styling changes or types of cars the editors don’t like, there’s not yet a lot of story to tell beyond “what’s new.” One could make various criticisms of the editors’ attitude and approach once they did get a chance to deal with the cars at greater length on public roads, but they hadn’t when these were written. The main variation with these issues was that some publications would do a more in-depth job of explaining the technical particulars.
It’s very tough to reasonably judge workmanship based on long-lead press cars. Sometimes you get carefully prepared and polished showpieces that have had a lot more TLC than most cars off the line ever would. Sometimes you get hastily assembled early-production mules filled out with lead and not-quite-standard trim. Even the snarkiest and rudest of reviewers tend to be forgiving of the latter and it’s easy to be misled by the former.
Love the manicured and painted index finger touching the “D” push button.
Those cable operated buttons needed more than a touch of pressure and had some travel to them, so every one I know (including myself) used our thumbs to shift with the side of the index finger under the button mount steadying the hand so we hit the right button.
Pushing “2” at too high a speed got nothing; tapping the brakes and gently slowing would eventually get a tire chirp as the torqueflite’s second gear took control.
Fun times. That torqueflite transmission never gave us a problem in our Chrysler (nor in a friend’s DeSoto) and they were roughly used.
Here’s my parents with their 57 Plymouth in 1963. This photo will appear in an upcoming Canoe Classic post.
Unfortunately this was the worst car Dad ever owned and it was replaced by a 60 Pontiac by the time I came along.
“It hasn’t reached the point where you will burn your knees while smoking.”
Not a common sentence in modern reviews.
I imagine those who were debating between a Chrysler and a Ford product in ’57, and chose a Ford, were probably patting themselves on the back a year later…
The Fords had their own problems with rust, sloppy workmanship and willowy bodies. The people patting themselves on the back were those who went with the “stodgy” 1957 Chevrolet or “oddball” 1957 Rambler.
And this is about the time that VW started to take off as people were driven away from Detroit by inferior quality control. Repeat again in 20-30 years except that now it’s the Japanese. Detroit has always been it’s own worst enemy. If AMC/Studebaker had put forth effort on improving reliability and dealer attitudes and service, they would have prospered. AMC was small enough to make institutional changes without all the internecine infighting that would have taken place at the Big Three.
Interesting article. I love reading about the 1957 Mopars – so much promise squandered by a variety of factors.
Interestingly, that 1957 Plymouth hardtop coupe must have been a pre-production model. Production 1957 Plymouths retained the 1956-style, “refrigerator pull” door handles. The production Plymouth door handles were not flush with the body.
Was Plymouth the only Chrysler line that got the refrigerator pull door handles during the Forward Look era?
Yes…the other Chrysler Corporation marques used the recessed door handles.
The ’57 Mopars laid out the “flat car” paradigm that was the norm for the next 25 years and lingered on the Ford Panthers until just a few years ago,
Beautiful cars, make mine a white over blue New Yorker four door hardtop with the dual headlight option.
The article comments about 10 inches(!!) lost in the back seat space of the ’57 Chrysler compared to ’56, and the 5 inch loss in height struck home a bit.
Some years ago, despite my appreciation for the biggest cars beginning with the 1957 Mopars, and ending with the 1979 Lincolns, I came to realize the limits of the longer, lower and wider philosophy. It took a pretty monstrous wheelbase, something in the 125″ territory to get a comfortable rear seat in most of these cars – even that was not a guarantee with coupes like the ’70s Eldorado. And, the long wheelbase luxury cars could weigh the better part of 5,000 lbs. Literally long on looks, but short on any measure of efficiency.
Modern sedans are probably a 20% minority in typical parking lots where I live. Their low height looks more foreign all the time. I’ve been considering a sedan as our next purchase, but I’ve been hooked on tall vehicles since owning a ’99 Chrysler Town and Country minivan. The legroom, headroom, and view out of the typical CUV / SUV / Truck / Minivan is hard to pass up. The term CUV is almost getting silly – it’s the standard modern car.
I can’t seem to properly embed a YouTube video on CC anymore, but this URL will give you a look into the middle class ideal of the late ’50s, and a look at the big Forward Look Chryslers (albeit the ’59s – but in living color!) Chrysler was the sole sponsor, and there are several embedded commercials throughout the show, which stars Fred Astaire.
https://youtu.be/vjHUj0F4djk
The guy that posted the video has a cool website covering some of the late ’50s dream machines he owned. Like Paul, he’s a former TV guy, so knows something about good media presentation. A neat website……
http://www.kingoftheroad.net/
Dad had a 56 Plym savoy and as I recall I don’t think it was much better
than a 57 My 57 Plym wagon brochure refers to it’s completely
rustproofed safety body How did that work out?
You would think that this quality disaster would have never been forgotton by the Chrysler management, but history has shown they let their guard down again in the 1970s.
It just amazes me that no one high up in control could remember that not so distant past.
I mean if you build crappy cars, and word gets out, you may get away with it if you can improve quality fairly quickly, but to go through it again and expect to get away with it, I just don’t get it.
Won’t let me edit, but meant to add That a 1957 2 door Plymouth is in my top 10 most wanted vehicles, so all is forgiven,
The 58’s were better. They had the same look and a lot of the quality issues were improved, if perhaps not completely solved.
The 58s were indeed improved a lot, but the 59s were the best of the lot. The one thing that could not get addressed seriously before 59 was the structural rigidity problem that affected the 57 so horribly.
Unfortunately, the 59’s styling was nowhere near as attractive as the previous two years. And customers were still gun-shy, no doubt from their neighbor’s constant complaining about the 57 they were still trying to pay off.
Some of the “solutions” that Chrysler implemented for 1958 to address problems with the 1957 models were half-baked, at best.
For example, to address concerns about rampant water leaks around the windshield and rear window, the corporation simply installed small tubes to channel the water to a tray that would supposedly funnel it outside the car.
You can imagine how that worked after about 10,000 or so miles, and the tubes became dislodged, clogged with dirt, or split.