The 1956 Lincoln was one of the brand’s most-important postwar cars. Almost 54,000 cars left the factory — an all-time record not broken until 1966.
The Ford Motor Company was clearly intending to make a big splash in the luxury-car field. Not only did Lincoln flaunt the only fully restyled car from the Big Three that year, but this was also the first high-volume, six-passenger American car to pioneer the lower, longer, wider look.
Interestingly, the dimensions of the pictured Premiere two-door hardtop were mostly similar to a comparable 1956 Cadillac. The Lincoln was about the same width, only two inches lower, and an inch longer. Yet designers managed to give the Lincoln a more “modern” appearance by emphasizing horizontal character lines throughout the car’s exterior.
The stylistic differences between the Lincoln and Cadillac were particularly apparent in the rear. Lincoln ditched the traditional boxy trunk in favor of a tapered shape. Designers also anticipated the 1960s with the U.S. auto industry’s longest rear overhang — 62 inches — and a thick, full-width chrome expanse that served to visually minimize the height of the trunk lid.
Stand-out design was overshadowed by Continental
The Lincoln represented such a stunning advancement in automobile styling that it should have dominated the headlines. Yet the car has always played second fiddle to the Continental Mark II, which was also launched in 1956.
Also see ‘Lincoln Zephyr was a first step in Ford surpassing Chrysler’
The Lincoln’s styling was unusually clean for the mid-50s but arguably didn’t rank with that of the Mark II, which has been widely described as a postwar classic.
Why didn’t Ford move back a year the introduction of the Mark II rather than rain on Lincoln’s parade? Or even better, why didn’t the supposedly cost-conscious Ford “whiz kids” pull the plug on the Continental, which may very well have been the most expensive vanity project in the postwar era?
Lincoln was a tasteful alternative to mid-50s glitziness
The 1956 Lincoln was not lithe in a European sense. The car had some ponderous qualities, such as rather big and complex-shaped bumpers.
In addition, the Lincoln’s new body was more than two inches wider than in 1955 but the car’s track was kept the same. That resulted in an unathletic stance.
Also see ‘Could the 1956-57 Lincoln have saved a dying Packard?’
All that said, the 1956 models eschewed some of the most infamous styling excesses of that year, including loud paint schemes, massive fascias and extra helpings of chrome.
Lincoln was unusually good at updating old styling cues
The 1956 Lincoln sported an all-new body and chassis that was considerably larger than the previous year’s models. Length grew by seven inches, the wheelbase by three, and width by two. Even so, the shipping weight on Lincoln’s top-end two-door hardtop only went up around 50 pounds.
Designers did an unusually good job of updating some of Lincoln’s aging design cues. As a case in point, the taillights displayed a family resemblance, but whereas the 1955 models had a tall and frumpy shape, the new-for-1956 look was exceptionally sleek.
Thomas E. Bonsall noted that the 1956 Lincolns were “text book examples of the stylists’ power to create images. The mental impressions one retains of the 1955 and 1956 models are totally different, yet if the actual cars are examined in detail it is obvious that, feature for feature, they are startlingly similar!” (1981, p. 148).
Lincoln management couldn’t leave a good design alone
For all of the money spent on the Lincoln’s sleek new styling, this car’s popularity proved to be short lived. In 1957 output fell 21 percent and market share dropped by almost 6 percent. This may have partly reflected intensifying competition, particularly from the trend-setting new Imperial.
Also see ‘1958 Imperial: Virgil Exner’s best shot at Cadillac’
Lincoln also didn’t help itself by giving the car an unfortunate facelift. The addition of fake quad headlights wasn’t so bad, but the new tail fins were weird even for that era. The fins were too tall and not smoothly integrated with side styling. Designers also exposed the rear wheels without increasing their track and deleted the lovely lower-body chrome band.
I am not suggesting that the the 1957 Lincoln could have gotten by with no styling updates. However, more evolutionary changes might have worked better. Most notably, the car could have been given more explicit fins without throwing away the basic shape of the rear end.
Also see ‘1958-60 Lincoln: Failing to beat GM at its own game’
If it is any saving grace, the rear end of the 1957 models could have looked a whole lot worse. When John Najjar became Lincoln head stylist, he significantly shortened both the fins and the wrap-around chrome piece (Crippen and Bakken, 1984).
NOTES:
Production figures and body specifications are from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), Consumer Reports (1956); Gunnell (2002), Wikipedia (2013) and Automobile Catalog (2023).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International; Lincolnwood, Ill.
- Automobile Catalog; 2023. “Full detailed specifications listing and photo gallery.” Accessed Jan 8.
- Consumer Reports; 1956. “Basic body dimensions of the 1956 four-door sedans.” April issue: pp. 178-179.
- Bonsall, Thomas E.; 1981. The Lincoln Motorcar: Sixty Years of Excellence. Bookman Dan!, Baltimore, MD.
- Crippen, David R. and Douglas A. Bakken; 1984. “The Reminiscences of John Najjar.” Automotive Design Oral History Project, Automobile in American Life and Society.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Wikipedia; 2022. “U.S. Automobile Production Figures.” Page last modified Jan. 26.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcaradvertising.com: Lincoln (1955)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Cadillac (1955); Lincoln (1956)
In my opinion, the 1956 Lincoln was a superior car to the 1956 Cadillac. The Lincoln’s bones were still rooted in the Carrera-Mexican Road-Race Lincolns, with their ball-joint front suspension and proven Y-block V-8. The styling cues for the ’56 Lincoln headlight treatment (also the 1955-1956 Mercurys) were predicted by the 1953 Ford X-100 concept car and the 1955 Futura, but the Lincoln’s lowness and the length of the rear-deck makes the 1956 Cadillac appear stodgy in comparison. Unfortunately, while the rear fins on the Futura / TV Batmobile were striking and awe-inspiring, when adapted to the 1956 body for 1957, were clumsy, and the 1957 Quadralights were less graceful than the 1956 front headlights. The adage that “Less is more” I think applies here. Frankly, having driven a 1955 Capri hardtop, I think the 1955 Lincoln is the one to own, even though I am in the minority.
James l completely agree on your styling comments on the 56 vs 57 Lincoln! And l appreciate the 55’s too!
But please explain why you seem to advocate that a ball joint front suspension would be inherently better than a good king pin system. Corvettes had king pin suspension up to 1962 (and centre-point steering).
The 55 is odd. Ford’s 55 was all new straight line, while the 56 Mercurys and Lincolns kept the vestigial rear fenders. In fact the 55 lincoln from the ad looks like a typical FoMoCo 1954 with a panorama windshield. The 56 Cad not only kept the vestigal rear fenders, but the curved chrome trim on the rear window/rear deck join reminmded one of the old hardtop as a convertible with a steel roof welded on, rather than the more integrated Lincoln look. It’s hard to tell from the Cad photo vs Lincoln painting, but it seems the hood and trunk lines are lower on the Lincoln. I’m looking at the 57 rear bumper there. It looks like a continental rear spare set up without the tire.
Kim, I once heard from a serious Lincoln collector that when the designers created those big rear wings for the 1957 Lincoln, they had a choice: Either lengthen the bumper to protect the fender tips, or reduce the fender length. They extended the bumper and kept the long fenders & taillights.
There was an interesting interview with Don Delarossa that included comments about the Continental Mark II design development. The Mark II was being led by someone considered an outsider to the rank & file Ford designers. As such, Delarossa talked about being advised to stay away from that project as a political stance.
That may help to explain why the Mark II worked so well as a design statement that broke from the typical Ford aesthetics. It should also mean that the Mark II was far less homogenized from so many contributors.
I do agree that the 1956 Lincoln is a better execution than the 1957 iteration but it still suffers from too much simplicity in the body side treatment. The body side reads as virtually a constant section across the entire length of the body.
Your background on the Mark II is interesting. Which interview are you referring to?
Thomas Bonsall listed John Reinhart as the styling lead for the Mark II and Gordon Buehrig as the body engineer. Both had terrific pedigrees, but — as you hint — outside of Ford. How ironic that it took outsiders to come up with a design that was both brilliant and admirably in keeping with the Continental’s design heritage.
As Bonsall noted, the big problem was that the Mark II operated under a very different business concept than the original, which was a much less ambitious effort (essentially a tarted up Lincoln coupe). If Ford had maintained that approach, the Mark II would have had the basic look of the 1956 Lincoln but with long-hood, short-deck proportions, a different roofline and an integrated Continental spare. Of course, building on the styling of the 1956 Lincoln wouldn’t have been ideal because it was more sci-fi than classical. However, if it was reasonably priced, a Lincoln-based Mark II could have sold well enough to survive.
I believe it was in Collector Automobile. Although not all interviews are transcribed and available on-line look at: http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Oral_histories.htm
Some interesting insights into the mentality of the leadership and some of the politics.
Jeff, that’s an important link. It’s unfortunate that so many of the interviews don’t have transcripts. If that proved too labor intensive, it would be entirely appropriate to post the recorded interviews as podcasts of sorts. Unfortunately, it looks like no one is putting any new energy into the website.
The Lincoln has a lower hood, as well as deck lid. The straight body line is cleaner,but the Caddy while a bit fussier, carries familiar design cues from 1948, and the continuity of it’s styling made it more appealing to customers. It obviously looked like a Cadillac!
Cadillac went to a flat hood and deck the next year in 1957. I had a ’56 and it felt like an old bus from behind the wheel, my ’57 gave a more modern impression. It’s very much like the ’57 Chevy.
Unfortunately, it wasn’t until 1961 that Lincoln picked up a design theme that they carried into the future.That ended with the rear drive platform. Lincoln now has a coherent styling theme for their SUVs, too bad they haven’t been more successful with their cars.
Lincoln has been saved with their SUVs. Their car side was a multi decade example of neglect and indecision. They bounced between ideas on design themes – which retro grill concept to reconstitute. Then bring out a car and let it run without updates until it just died in the market.
This is a clueless fault that goes straight into the C Suite members over several regimes.
I have a long-standing love for mid 1950s American luxury cars, and I consider myself blessed with having owned the following cars between 1969 and 1998:
1955 Packard 400 2-door hardtop.
1956 Packard Patrician sedan.
1955 Cadillac Fleetwood 60s sedan.
1956 Cadillac Coupe DeVille.
1955 Lincoln Capri sedan.
1956 Lincoln Premier 2-door hardtop.
1955 Imperial C-70 limousine [Ex V.P. Nixon’s limo].
1956 Imperial sedan.
My favorite 2-door hardtop was the ’56 Lincoln Premier, the #2 was the Packard 400.
My favorite sedan was the ’56 Packard Patrician, #2 was the Cadillac 60s.
My favorite to drive long distances was the ’56 Imperial, #2 was the Cadillac 60s.
In my opinion, the V8 Packard, with it’s torsion bar system, rode the best, while the ’56 Lincoln styling beat the others, and my ’55 Cadillac with the optional twin 4 barrel carbs, was quicker. All of them had factory A/C except for the ’56 Imperial, and the Cadillac was the best A/C. Overall reliability was the 1956 Imperial, I drove that car all over central Europe in the mid 1970s, and it was almost trouble free. For a feeling of total luxury, the ’55 Imperial limo was my choice, closing the rear door was like closing a bank vault door, and almost as quiet.
Bill, that’s an impressive list of cars. How was the reliability of the Packard?
http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Oral_histories.htm
Some interesting insights into the mentality of the leadership and some of the politics.
REPLY
Steve says:
JANUARY 9, 2023 AT 10:28 PM
Jeff, that’s an important link. It’s unfortunate that so many of the interviews don’t have transcripts. If that proved too labor intensive, it would be entirely appropriate to post the recorded interviews as podcasts of sorts. Unfortunately, it looks like no one is putting any new energy into the website.
REPLY
Steve, I agree that it is a shame that so few of the interviews have been transcribed. There are some very interesting ones that are available to get a sense of the people and the different environments.
Bob Gregorie describes a personal interaction as he created his designs for Ford. An approach that was quite different from the GM model.
George Walker is the epitome of why Detroit created “camel” designs as his leadership style was to appease as many senior managers as possible. He also tell of his part in getting Engel installed as the replacement for Exner at Chrysler.
Bill Mitchell is a massive ego but deservedly so. The biggest operation that was a hit machine. But, there is also the absolute drive to be the industry leader, anything less was not acceptable.
Bordinat talks a big game but was just another butt kisser that furthers how Ford’s internal politics were a blood sport. Do take note that Bordinat was one of the defectors from GM after WWII when Ford decided they needed to build a Design/Styling organization. [GM’s design operation was the source for multiple design leaders around the industry – Exner, Teague, and many more in the middle ranks. Back when one only went to GM initially but could never come there from another company.]
Exner is an interesting case. As noted above he was originally at GM and rose up the ranks well. He left and did Studebakers until going to Chrysler. Exner had his own aesthetic that was not trying to be warmed over GMs (like Ford). His 1957 Forward Look was a game changer. He took the fall at Chrysler for others in the executive committee mistake.
As for this discussion on the Lincoln it is too bad that the transcripts for John Reinhart and Don Delarossa are not available.
The 1956 Lincoln in my opinion has the best styling of any Lincoln in the 1950-60 time frame, including even the Contnental Mark II. It’s too bad about the modifications for 1957, and the less said about the gargantuan 1958-60 models, the better.
The Mark II’s front end is too anodyne for my tastes, and the bug-eyed headlights do it no favors. The car’s best angle is the rear 3/4 view, but I’d prefer it even more without the spare tire hump.
To my eye, the Mk II always looks like its fender skirts have been either stolen or not put back on after a tire change. Their absence ruins the design.
The Premiere had potential but ended up ill-proportioned, the axle-dash being far too short and the front track too narrow. Also, for sedan the rear quarter windows should have included those solid triangular pieces, which were an odd embellishment. They did nail the hardtop’s greenhouse, the shape and particularly the C-pillar ornamentation being truly inspired.
I think one of Premiere’s biggest problems was that it only supported one brand. If it had shortened its rear overhang to balance with the short hood, it would have opened up an opportunity for the new Continental division, which could have used its body and gone long front and rear. Instead the Premiere and Mk II both had the same lack of scale that the ’57 Imperial had.