Ford’s aggressive efforts to retake the top-selling crown from Chevrolet reached a crescendo in the 1957 model year, when it out-produced its rival by more than 170,000 units. Ford’s main advantage was a new body with lower, longer, wider styling. In contrast, Chevrolet made due with a facelift of a two-year-old design.
For 1958 the tables were turned — Chevrolet sported a new look whereas Ford only got a facelift, albeit more substantial than was typical for a second year. But while Chevrolet retook the top spot, it wasn’t an exceptionally strong showing.
Perhaps the biggest reason why was the advent of a recession. That didn’t just depress automobile sales — it also led to shifts in car-buying patterns. Import sales rose to unprecedented levels while the premium-priced field tanked. Among the low-priced brands, the compact Rambler saw booming sales whereas top-end models tended to see their popularity fall the most.
Bigger on the outside, smaller on the inside
The primary problem with the 1958 Chevrolet’s new design was that it did not align with the shifting marketplace. To varying degrees this was also the case with the Ford and Plymouth, but it undercut what would have typically been a big advantage: Chevy was only low-priced brand with a new design.
For 1958 the Chevrolet was much bigger on the outside. Its length was up nine inches to 209 inches — now slightly longer than an Oldsmobile Dynamic 88. Meanwhile, width grew almost four inches to 77.7 inches.
That translated into weight gains of around 200 pounds, which made the Chevrolet the heaviest of the low-priced cars. For example, an entry-level Delray four-door sedan had a shipping weight of 3,429 pounds compared to the Ford Custom 300 (3,222 pounds), the Plymouth Plaza (3,255 pounds) and the Rambler DeLuxe (2,947 pounds).
The larger size negatively impacted gas mileage and maneuverability but did not improve the car’s interior room. For example, front and rear hip room stayed the same at 62.1/63.1 inches. However, calculated passenger volume fell from 109.4 cubic feet to 103.9 cubic feet, perhaps because a lower roofline cut headroom.
The public liked the new Chevrolet enough to put it back on top. In addition, production fell “only” 24.4 percent in the 1958 model year, which was less than Ford (-42.6 percent), Plymouth (-41.2 percent) and Studebaker (-27.9 percent). These numbers are only for high-volume cars — not specialty models such as the Corvette, Hawk and Thunderbird.
Even so, Chevrolet captured 41.3 percent of the low-priced field, which was below the brand’s peak of 43.2 percent in 1955. One culprit may have been the Rambler, whose market share almost tripled to 5.9 percent.
Note that the percentages can vary depending upon which data source one uses, where there was not agreement on 1958 Chevrolet model-year production. For internal consistency I used data from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), whose figures were lower than other sources.
New Impala gives Chevrolet a sort-of personal coupe
The most significant change to Chevrolet’s lineup was the introduction of the Impala. In its first year, the top-of-line nameplate was considered a sub-model of the Bel Air and only offered in a two-door hardtop and convertible.
Motor Trend described the Impala as a “personal sport coupe that seems to possess all the attributes of the European Gran Turismo car” (1958, p. 52). That strikes me as a wee bit of an exaggeration, but the Impala was more than the usual top-end model.
For one thing, it didn’t just sport fancier trim — the two-door hardtop’s roofline had more of a sculpted and semi-fastback shape than that of the the regular Bel Air model.
In addition, all Impalas were given more dramatically slanted tail fins and a reshaped trunk lid that fit three-port taillights. All other non-wagon models only used two-port taillights and a trunk lid with a wider base.
The Impala hardtop’s list price was $2,586, which was slightly higher than Ford’s top-end Fairlane 500 ($2,435) but below the Plymouth Fury ($3,067).
A Motor Trend road test of the above three cars concluded that the Impala “should easily win acceptance from the sports-minded automobile enthusiast. It’s a solid car, with good cornering characteristics, plenty of power, and a chassis that should hold up under a rugged life.” However, the magazine complained about low fuel economy for all three cars, with the Impala tallying only 14.2 miles per gallon ( 1958, p. 60).
Richard M. Langworth and Jan P. Norbye noted that the Impala “was lavishly trimmed on the outside and posh on the inside, sporting attractively combinations of fabric and vinyl set out in bucket-seat-like patterns” (1986, p. 224).
Now let’s take a look at the interior of an Impala that has been restored. Indie Auto commentator Mike of IA points out that the upholstery deviates from how the car came from the factory.
I have seen wildly varying figures about how many Impalas were produced in the 1958 model year. The Encyclopedia of American Cars (auto editors of Consumer Guide, 2006) said 60,000 units whereas J. “Kelly” Jr. Flory (2009) listed almost 99,000 while Wikipedia (2024) itemized more than 181,000 units.
Did Ford’s low-priced cars really do that poorly in 1958?
Aaron Severson (2024) recently posted a three-part analysis of auto industry output during the 1958 recession. In Part 2 his biggest takeaway was that “buyers really didn’t like the 1958 Ford. I’ve never been entirely sure why — it’s not my cup of tea, but it seems inoffensive enough for this period — and conversely have never understood the adoration for the ’57 Ford, whose looks, in my view, are spoiled by the headlight treatment, a gawky afterthought that suggests an endorsement deal with Kermit the Frog. However, a sales decline of almost one-third suggests that people had strong feelings on this point.”
Also see ‘1954 Chevrolet was beginning of the end for GM’s brand hierarchy’
That makes sense, so I’ve taken another look at the data I have access to. It’s telling that Ford’s model-year production dropped by a slightly higher percentage than Plymouth’s even though Ford: 1) had a more substantial facelift, 2) offered a two-tiered lineup that included smaller economy models well suited to the recession and 3) its 1957 models did not arguably tarnish the brand’s reputation nearly as much as Plymouth’s did due to quality-control issues.
Jim and Cheryl Farrell (2022) blamed Ford’s weak sales on its new styling. I have previously questioned that argument (go here), partly by presenting model-year production data. Ford appears to have seen less slippage in its output of lower-level models than either Chevrolet or Plymouth, although the Rambler may have undercut what might have otherwise been a bigger Ford advantage. Meanwhile, regardless of which numbers one draws upon, Chevrolet would appear to have done better than its rivals in the shrunken market for higher-end models, although Ford saw less of a decline than Plymouth. Did this function as a pincer maneuver?
This brings us back to the Chevrolet Impala. It may not have sold as well in 1958 as it might have a year earlier, but it may have also helped Chevy recapture leadership in the higher reaches of the low-priced field.
NOTES:
Production figures and specifications are from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), Automobile Catalog (2024), Flory (2009), Gunnell (2002) and (Wikipedia (2022).
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; 2024. “Full detailed specifications listing and photo gallery.” Accessed Oct. 11.
- Farrell, Jim and Cheryl; 2022. “The 1958 Ford—An Indirect Casualty Of The Edsel.” Dean’s Garage. Posted Sept. 4.
- Flory, J. “Kelly” Jr.; 2009. American Cars, 1946-1959: Every Model, Year by Year. McFarland & Co.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Langworth, Richard M. and Jan P. Norbye; 1986. The Complete History of General Motors 1908-1986. Publications International, Skokie, IL.
- Motor Trend; 1958. “Plymouth . . . Chevrolet . . . Ford . . . on trial.” January issue: pp. 52-61.
- Severson, Aaron; 2024. “Mapping the 1958 Model Year, Part 2.” Ate Up With Motor (Patreon site). Posted Oct. 4.
- Wikipedia; 2022. “U.S. Automobile Production Figures.” Page last modified Jan. 26.
- ——; 2024. “Chevrolet Impala.” Page last modified Oct. 10.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcaradvertising.com: Chevrolet (1958); Ford (1958); Plymouth (1958); Rambler (1958)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Chevrolet (1958); Studebaker (1958)
The 1958 Plymouth was lightly changed from the 1957 Plymouth, but in addition to the late 1957-1958 domestic recession, the build quality and rust problems of all Chryslers were a factor in lower sales in 1958 and 1959. One cannot argue taste, as I find the 1958 Ford front clip much less attractive than the Mystere-inspired 1957 Fords, which were breathtaking in my opinion. The 1958 Ford was the least attractive of the three 1957 through 1959 years.
Frankly, in my opinion, the 1958 Chevrolet and Pontiacs were Fisher Body clones of the 1958 Oldsmobile 88s and Buick Specials, with the Chevy and the Pontiac embracing the G.M. “X”-frame that had been used on the 1957 Cadillacs. The big weakness of the 1958 Chevrolet and Pontiac were the “X”-frames, as in side-impacts, the cars had a tendency to wrap around telephone poles (at 35-40-m.p.h., no less). In 1963, my best friend’s mother wrapped her 1958 Bel Air four-door around such a utility pole on an icy two-lane road. She spent weeks in the hospital from her critical injuries. The four-door sedan body was apparently very stiff and had zero crumple zones. I don’t know if Ford “cow-belly” frames were any safer in similar impacts, but I know Oldsmobile abandoned the “X”-frame as early as the 1960 model-year, adding side frame members to the chassis. (Oldsmobiles also used leaf-springs on the rear axles rather than coils between 1957 and 1960.)
Still, if I wanted a 1958 Chevrolet Del Ray two-door wagon to resto-mod, I would ditch the “X”-frame and the 1958 engine lines (which other than the 283s were not very economical) and put the body on a perimeter frame with modern coil-overs and four-wheel disc brakes to go with a 396 and a modern overdrive-lockup automatic. Still, the 1958 Chevrolets from the 150s to the Bel Airs to the Impalas were model for model more substantial (and heavier), marginally quieter and softer riding than the comparable Fords.
Correction to my own posting: Oldsmobile added frame “outriggers” to the Buick “X”-frame to the 1959 Oldsmobiles, the only G.M. division to do so. I recently saw a 1959 Oldsmobile TV spot on “YouTube” touting both the perimeter from with the “X”-frame. I am guessing Oldsmobile still exercised more divisional independence than G.M.’s other divisions.
The Wikipedia editors refer to an ambiguously cited Auto Editors of Consumer Guide item, and I think missed the important explanatory note in Standard Catalog, which says:
NOTE 1: Most Chevrolet production totals, after 1957, are available only in a form that indicates all series. There are no breakouts per series, model or engine type. For 1958, the totals were: four-door sedan — 491,441; two-door sedan — 256,182; four-door station wagon — 170,473; sport coupe — 142,592; sport sedan — 83,330; convertible — 55,989; and two-door station wagon — 16,590.
So, the confusion results from different sources trying to estimate an allocation of these totals between the different series.
It appears from all sources I can see that the only ’58 convertible in the Chevrolet line (aside from the Corvette) was the Impala, so if there were 55,989 convertibles, the Consumer Guide estimate of 60,000 Impalas is plainly too low. So, the question comes down to how many of the 142,592 sport coupes were Impalas and how many were Bel Airs.
Although the Wikipedia article’s footnotes leave it totally unclear where their numbers came from, the estimate that 125,480 (88 percent) of the 142,592 ’58 sport coupes were Impalas sounds more plausible than Flory’s estimated 43,000 (39 percent). Reason: For 1959, it appears that Chevrolet limited the sport coupe to the Impala line, which makes a lot more sense to me if that’s what most ’58 buyers chose anyway. If three-fifths of two-door hardtop buyers had really stuck with the cheaper Bel Air version, I’d think it would seem risky to drop that, whereas if nine out of ten sport coupe buyers opted for the pricier model, the prospect of steering them all that way wouldn’t seem too outlandish.
If I’m not mistaken, the Bel Air Sport Coupe and Sport Sedan returned part way through the 1959 model year.
There was definitely a Bel Air sport sedan in 1959, but it appears there wasn’t a sport coupe except in the Impala series.
I think the 1959 Bel Air sport coupe or hardtop coupe was only sold in Canada.
https://davidsclassiccars.com/chevrolet/462966-1959-canadian-bel-air-2-door-hardtop-like-impala.html
You’ve touched on a good example of the kind of issues that can come up when an auto history writer tries to do data analysis. All four major sources of information I draw upon vary in their data about 1958 Chevrolet model-year production. So what to do?
The graph and text in my story uses data from the Encyclopedia of American Automobiles, which is a Consumer Guide book. I drew upon their figures instead of those from the Standard Catalog because I wanted to analyze nameplate-level output, and the Standard Catalog doesn’t do that for this particular brand and model year. However, one problem is that the Encyclopedia’s total Chevrolet production for 1958 is lower than in the Standard Catalog — or even Wikipedia’s brand-level production totals.
Well after developing this table I bought Flory’s books. He also breaks out production figures by body style and nameplate. His total Chevrolet production for 1958 is a bit higher than even the Standard Catalog but his body style figures mostly align. So maybe I should switch to his data? I have been hesitant to do so until I got a better feel for how accurate his production data is compared to other sources.
This is a rather nerdy comment but I thought it might be helpful for readers to know that analyzing data involves more than just typing Standard Catalog figures into a spreadsheet and running a few calculations.
I think for making charts it’s probably generally better to stick with the same data source as much as possible, but the discrepancies can be vexing.
FWIW, the difference between Flory’s Chevrolet total and the Standard Catalog figures appears to be the Corvette: Standard Catalog of American Cas and Standard Catalog of Chevrolet both list a 1958 model year total of 1,217,049, but they separate the Corvette into a separate entry. If you add the 1958 Corvette total (9,168), you get Flory’s make total of 1,226,217, so that much is explicable. This does NOT match the Consumer Guide figures, however, although the latter’s breakdown seems to be wrong.
(The problem with both Consumer Guide and the Standard Catalog editors is that they are assiduous recyclers, and so they can repeat and sometimes compound the same errors. The 60,000 Impalas estimate, for instance, shows up in an earlier edition of the Encyclopedia of American Cars from back in 1980, and they’ve just kept repeating it even though I think it’s pretty clearly incorrect. The Standard Catalog of American Cars, meanwhile, at least in the 4th edition, seems to omit part of the Bel Air series summaries from Standard Catalog of Chevrolet.
On Flory, I took all of his production figures for the standard-sized Chevrolet (but excluding the Corvette) and compared the totals to Gunnell’s (which supposedly doesn’t include the Corvette). Flory was lower by around 10,500 units. Individual body styles were off by fairly minor amounts except for four-door sedans, where Flory was lower by over 10,000 units. Meanwhile, the body style production figures for the Biscayne don’t add up to the listed total of 389,150 units — it is under that amount by almost 11,000 units.
I have great empathy for the folks who plugged in this data because there are endless ways to go wrong. I just wish that the data was available from a centralized source that is not-for-profit, electronic, downloadable (so no need to manually input) and easily updatable — so that inevitable errors can be fixed as they are found. This would be a terrific project for one of the bigger auto history associations or a university — and I would think that someone, somewhere would be willing to fund the effort.
The three photos you use of the Impala interior are NOT original 1958 style. Impalas had quite interesting 3-tone horizontal striped cloth inserts in the vinyl seat covers. Also, the rear arm rest should be all vinyl. (It is hard to tell from the photos if the side panels use anodized aluminum in the smaller sections like they should.) I have the green version on my 51,000 mile two-owner 6-cylinder hardtop. Grandma bought it new (switching from Oldsmobiles because she did not like the ’58s) and I have taken care of it since 1974. My other grandparents had a ’58 Bel Air 2-door sedan. It was nice inside, but the Impala was clearly a step above, and the lower roofline, different rear styling, and side “pitch-forks” set it apart.
I have come to view the 1958 Chevrolet and 1958 Pontiac car lines were not really “all-new” Fisher bodies, but were brand specific restyles of the Oldsmobile 88 / Buick Special inner bodies. (Yes, the 1958 Chevrolet and Pontiac bodies were “all-new” for those brands.) To my eye, the 1958 Pontiac and 1958 Chevrolet were the best of the 1958 G.M. cars in terms of styling, but that’s only my opinion.
I didn’t include the origins of the body because I didn’t think it was relevant to this particular story, which focused on Chevy-Ford competition. This body was new to Chevrolet and the low-priced field. And it’s not like it was blatant badge engineering — no one would confuse a Chevrolet with an Oldsmobile.
More generally, it may also be helpful to know that when I post a given story for the first time, my goal is to get the basics down. As I repost the piece over time I will add new layers of information (and the story may be relabeled from a “Gallery” feature, which focuses on a specific car I photographed, to a full-fledged “History”).
This is how I am able to add three new or reposted stories a week. You can have frequency of publishing or story depth, but you can’t have both.
For a site like this, 3 articles oer week is a lot of effort
Your site already has plenty of older articles to go through, so I don’t mind if I don’t read so many new things constantly
You are just a sole historian, not an institution and your work is rightly focused on quality; moreover, all this nice work is a vast encyclopedia (as in the old times, facts and analysis)
Besides, I agree with your exact analysis about the 59 Impala (Fisher bodied or not)
Regarding the drop in Ford production compared to that of Plymouth for 1958 – Chrysler Corporation experienced difficulty in getting its 1957 models into production. They had originally been planned for the 1958 model year, but Colbert decided to push them forward by one year. Hence, the quality issues (poor panel and trim fit, and serious water leaks) and assembly problems. The Plymouths, in particular, sold very well in 1957. Chrysler was thus grappling with shortages of most models throughout a large portion of the 1957 model year.
Ford, meanwhile, had no such issues with getting the 1957 models into production, although early 1957 Fords were plagued with poor panel and trim fits (the rust problems didn’t show up until later). Given that Ford was eager to “Beat Chevrolet” in 1957, it would not be surprising if Ford had ramped up production and was pushing them on dealers (although not at the same level as the infamous 1954 “Ford Blitz”).
The economy and car sales had actually softened during the summer of 1957. Ford may very well have had more leftover 1957s to sell when the 1958 models debuted, as compared to Plymouth. That could have hurt sales of the 1958 models, even though they were improved in key ways over the 1957 Fords.
Chevrolet benefitted from a good reputation heading into the 1958 model year, as it had avoided major quality issues in 1957. This was not surprising, as Chevrolet was selling a refined and restyled version of its 1955 models. I would also guess that the Impala stole a fair number of sales from GM’s medium-price makes (particularly the Buick Special, as Buick’s 1955-56 models had suffered from quality issues, and Buick’s 1958 styling was viewed as overdone even by the standards of the day).