Is Jim and Cheryl Farrell’s critique of the 1958 Ford’s styling unfair?

Did the substantially facelifted 1958 Fords have less-attractive styling than the all-new 1957 models? In a recent story posted at Dean’s Garage, Jim and Cheryl Farrell (2022) suggest that the answer is yes. Indeed, they conclude that “many suspect the company shot itself in the foot by trying too hard to make the ’58 Ford look like the ’58 Thunderbird.”

Also see ‘Dean’s Garage: An insider’s look at car design that steers clear of Detroit’s fall’

The Farrells (2022) blame this supposedly unhappy turn of events on Ford Division head Jim Wright, whom they describe as a beancounter rather than a car guy. He allegedly tried to “micromanage the design of Fords.” For example, he “insisted that the ’58 Ford take its design cues from the new, already designed ’58 Thunderbird.”

The Farrells’ story includes three-dozen photographs of mockups that show a variety of attempts by designers to graft 1958 Thunderbird styling cues onto the 1957 family-car body. These images, and adjoining narrative, are worth taking a look at (go here). However, I would like to raise some questions about the Farrells’ basic argument.

What’s so bad about having a family resemblance?

Part of what gives me pause is that the Farrells seem to equate micromanagement with Wright’s insistence that the Thunderbird should have a resemblance to other Fords. What the co-authors don’t mention is that Wright was continuing a policy used by a previous division head, Lewis Crusoe. Why was that okay under Crusoe — who the Farrells describe as a car guy — but not okay when beancounter Wright maintained it?

The closest the Farrells (2022) get to answering this question is to state that Ford Division design head Joe Oros wanted to “continue the smooth, good looks of the ‘57 Ford Fairlane,” which he had helped design.

The Farrells seem to view the styling of the 1957 models as so good that the family resemblance policy should have been waived. That decision strikes me as involving product-planning as much as styling. Thus, I don’t think it fair to say that Wright’s decision to maintain the policy served to micromanage the stylists.

The Farrells also fail to acknowledge that Wright did not act like the classic, penny-pinching finance guy. For one thing, the facelift was unprecedented in its scope for a second-year, post-war Ford design. That had to have been costly. In addition, 1958 was the first time that the family cars and Thunderbird did not use the same taillights. That gave the stylists more flexibility.

Switching to quad taillights had a certain logic

One unanswered question in the story is whether the 1958 Thunderbird was designed with the intent to not resemble other Fords. Or was the attitude that those who subsequently designed the family cars should carry the entire burden of creating a resemblance? Either way, who made that decision?

I could see how a decision could have been made to better differentiate the 1958 Thunderbird. As a case in point, if the T-Bird had continued to share the same pie-plate taillights as the family cars, that could have arguably undercut the personal coupe’s “all-new” look.

It also makes some sense that quad taillights were experimented with in 1958. Quad headlights were the big thing, so mimicking them in the rear of the car offered some design consistency. In addition, at that point quads signaled a more modern and custom look.

That said, Ford later made a wise decision to go back to pie-plate taillights because they had become a design trademark. On the family cars they switched back in 1959 and on the Thunderbird in 1961.

If Wright had not been responsible for the decision to give the 1958 Thunderbird quad taillights, I don’t think he should be blamed for repeating them on Ford’s family cars. Calling for a family resemblance was a reasonable idea.

So who designed the 1958 Thunderbird?

I did a quick dive into the literature and have not gained much clarity. For example, Wikipedia’s (2022) entry for Oros states that he “did the primary design work on the new, four-seat Ford Thunderbird.” This narrative has been frequently repeated elsewhere (e.g., Conceptcarz, 2022; Netcarshow.com, 2022).

Hemmings writer Mark J. McCourt (2018) added more details by noting that “Chief Stylist Joe Oros penned a memorable theme with wide, dual pods at the rear, topped by the now-trademark Thunderbird fins.” 

Some articles state that Oros’s proposal for the 1958 competed with one by Elwood Engel — which became the basis for the 1961 Lincoln Continental (e.g., Samsen, 2020; HandWiki, 2022). However, according to Thomas E. Bonsall (2004), Engel’s proposal wasn’t completed until August 1958, which suggests that it was actually for the 1961 Thunderbird. Richard Langworth’s narrative aligns with this scenario, with the added wrinkle that the winning T-Bird proposal was from “long-standing Bird designer Billy Boyer” (1987, p. 208).

Automotive News reporter Mark Rechtin (2003) was more vague. He stated that Oros was “brought on board to help style the T-Bird from 1955 through 1961.” In contrast, Aaron Severson (2008) wrote that the so-called “Square Bird” was initiated by a design team headed by Bill Boyer.

Also see ‘David Burrell’s take on the 1962 Dodge and Plymouth gets partway there’

So who is right? I couldn’t say without more research. However, if Oros did play a major role in designing the 1958 Thunderbird, why weren’t family resemblance issues worked out before the car was finalized?

The 1957 Fords were not as great as presented

The Farrells seem to take it as a given that the styling of the 1957 Ford family cars was better than the 1958 models. While car design is subjective, I would like to add some depth and balance to the conversation.

The 1957 Fords were among the less ridiculous designs of the late-50s, but they did suffer from gimmickry that didn’t age well. For example, the Fairlane 500’s rear-quarter chrome trim and two-tone paint exaggerated the height of the tail fins. In contrast, the 1958 models had much more understated fins.

In addition, the relatively clean fascia of the 1957 models was undercut by single headlights that did not fit within their fender canopies. This gave them a tacked-on quality. Switching to quad headlights in 1958 solved that problem.

And while one could argue that the 1958 Ford’s fascia was bulkier, it no longer had a bucktoothed look, where a massive bumper extended well past the grille’s base. The 1958’s bumper was arguably better integrated and had a more innovative shape — particularly for a low-priced brand.

The Farrells seem to particularly like the 1957 Ford’s pie-plate taillights. That’s understandable, but one could argue that the 1958 treatment was more advanced. The horizontal pods with half of the taillights integrated into the trunk lid anticipated the more sculpted rear ends of the 1960s. In addition, the 1957 Fairlane’s overly massive rear bumper was toned down.

Also see ‘Road & Track once predicted a Karmann Ghia-based VW sedan’

My point here isn’t to convince anyone that the 1958 Ford looked outstanding. I am merely suggesting that the design offered some useful evolutionary improvements that deserve acknowledgement.

To what degree did styling impact 1958 Ford sales?

The Farrells (2022) state that “most car buyers felt the ’58 Ford was not as attractive as the ’57.” However, they don’t say how they know this except to point to lower sales in 1958.

It’s true that Ford’s family-car line (excluding the Thunderbird) saw the largest production decline of the low-priced brands in 1958 — 42.6 percent versus 41.2 percent for Plymouth and 24.4 percent for Chevrolet.

If fresh styling was such a big deal, shouldn’t Ford’s facelift have better protected it against Chevrolet’s new design than Plymouth’s fairly minor changes? In addition, shouldn’t Plymouth’s sales in 1958 have suffered more than Ford’s because its 1957 models had a substantially worse frequency-of-repair record due to their rushed development (Consumer Reports, 1963; Grist, 2007)?

And while the Rambler’s soaring sales may have thrown off the traditional market-share margins between the Big Three brands, shouldn’t the smaller and more conservative design of Ford’s lower-level Custom and Custom 300 models have been a stronger competitor to AMC’s compact than the super-sized offerings from Plymouth and Chevrolet?

Ford’s two lower-level series did drop only 38 percent compared to 44 percent for Plymouth’s and 55 percent for Chevrolet’s comparable models. However, Chevy’s high-end Bel Air series (including the Impala) decreased only 12 percent whereas Ford’s Fairlane and Fairlane 500 fell 46 percent; Plymouth’s Belvedere and Fury were down 57 percent. This suggests that the sales of top-of-line models were more dependent on the freshness of their styling.

Also see ‘1955-56 Chryslers: ‘Forward Look’ wasn’t as successful as sometimes assumed’

The above line graph offers an additional cut of the data. In 1958 Ford’s production fell the most with its lowest- and highest-priced series. That said, the Custom 300 began to rival the Fairlane 500 in output. The onset of a recession presumably led to a greater portion of Ford buyers seeking a practical car rather than a glitzy one. Alas, Ford was emphasizing the latter.

Was the problem with the theory or the execution?

The murkiness of production data suggest that one can raise reasonable questions about whether the 1958 Ford’s facelift was a key factor in its weaker sales. Nevertheless, for the sake of discussion let’s blame it all on the styling.

The Farrells do not acknowledge that the core problem may not have been with the theory behind the facelift, which was to maintain a resemblance between the family cars and Thunderbird. After all, giving one’s entire product line a cohesive look is hardly a controversial idea in the auto industry.

What if the problem was actually with the design’s execution? For example, could Oros have come up with quad taillights that were better adapted to the taller, boxier body of the family cars?

I am not raising these questions to defend Jim Wright. Nor am I a fanboy of the 1958 Ford, which I find to be a middling design. My goal here is to show how automotive history can be heavily colored by those who happen to get the ear — and the sympathy — of a writer.

Also see ‘The downside of auto historians writing about their friends’

I wouldn’t criticize the Farrells for presenting a point of view. Done well, that can advance automotive history. The problem is that they could have constructed a tighter argument and provided more evidence to back it up.

NOTES:

Production and market share were calculated from base data from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), Gunnell (2002) and Wikipedia (2013). 

Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.

---

RE:SOURCES

• Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 2002. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, Ill.
• Bonsall, Thomas E. 2004. The Lincoln Story: The Postwar Years. Stanford General Books, Stanford, CA.
• Conceptcarz; 2022. “The 1958 Ford Thunderbird.” Accessed Oct. 6.
• Consumer Reports; 1963. “The six-year record.” April issue: pp. 170-171 (no link available).
• Farrell, Jim and Cheryl; 2022. “The 1958 Ford—An Indirect Casualty Of The Edsel.” Dean’s Garage. Posted Sept. 4.
• Grist, Peter; 2007. Virgil Exner, Visioneer. Veloce Publishing, Dorchester, England.
• Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
• HandWiki; 2022. “Engineering:Ford Thunderbird (second generation).” Page accessed Oct. 6.
• Langworth, Richard M.; 1987. The Complete History of Ford Motor Company. Beekman House, NY.
• McCourt, Mark J.; 2018. “Fabulous Thunderbirds.” Hemmings. Posted Sept. 22.
• Netcarshow.com; 2022. “Ford Thunderbird (1958).” Accessed Oct. 6.
• Rechtin, Mark; 2003. “The T-Bird: No one’s sure, but whoever did it, did it right.” AutoWeek. Posted June 16.
• Samsen, John; 2020. “Elwood Engel, Chrysler’s Chief Stylist.” Allpar.com. Posted Nov. 16.
• Severson, Aaron; 2008. “Gaudy but Glamorous: 1958–1966 Ford Thunderbird.” Ate Up With Motor. Posted July 17.
• Wikipedia; 2013. “U.S. Automobile Production Figures.” Accessed July 5.
• ——; 2022. “Joe Oros.” Page last modified Aug. 16.

ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:

• wildaboutcarsonline.com (Automotive History Preservation Society): Ford (1957, 1958); Ford Thunderbird (1958)
• oldcaradvertising.com: Ford Thunderbird (1958)
• oldcarbrochures.org: Chevrolet (1958)