I've got a 63 300, the second one I've owned since about 87'. Also owned a 63 Imperial LeBaron for several years before I traded it off to a chrysler collector I know. My 300 now is running really well. I sometimes take speed bumps at 20 25 or 30 just to see if I can validate this add, and maybe I'm biased, but this car is tougher than a 1 ton truck. You can also take a corner, dirt road gravel paved, no matter, comfortably at 15 20, even 25 mph without sliding out fishtailing etc. So imo, there's something to this torsion bar leaf spring air shock combo. Most people just don't even understand the ad.
@@bboucharde shut up, what does your comment about our President have to do about cars or the sub comment thread? See what you and the other gentlemen in these comments, do not understand is that the man in the video is not referring to a flat chested WOMAN librarian, it's an urban joke about people, in general, who work as book keeps and usually tend to hold their books so close to their chest, like it's going to fly away, and so the joke is that all book keepers have a special mutated, abnormal flat chest. Which this can apply to either sex, as men aren't perfectly flat chested anyways. It's what they would call a joke! It's not sexualized, it's not poking fun at flat chested women, it's just a joke that died out over time, like many other sayings or dialects, that only older folk would understand. I wouldn't expect someone like you to understand. Of course you are a product of an over sexualized culture and your first reaction to hearing this joke is to automatically assume it is referring to flat chested women. Hope I was able to make that clear.
+Jack A , In 1957 Chrysler Corporation offered quad headlights as an option on their Imperial, Chrysler and DeSoto lines. Mercury also offered them as an option. They were standard on the 1957 Nash Ambassador and Cadillac Eldorado Brougham. Some states outlawed quad headlights in 1957, until the next year, when legislation made them legal in all states. The 1957 Lincoln offered two headlights with slightly smaller "road" lights below them, giving a quad light look.
Tom McCahill wrote for Mechanix Illustrated. I do not recall him ever writing for Popular Mechanics though he may have done a few short articles for them which I am unaware of. He usually had a couple full road test articles in every issue of Mechanix Illustrated as well as an excellent column called "Mail for McCahill" in which readers would submit written letters to Tom and would most often receive sarcastic replies from the crusty old curmudgeon. I believe that after Tom's passing in the mid 70s, Mechanix Illustrated hired some ghost writer to continue the Mail for McCahill column but it was never the same. I still have about 100 issues of Mechanix Illustrated stashed away in an old trunk and from time to time, I pull out a few to peruse.. RIP Tom Ken Greenberg Chicago, Illinois
Hello from France (via England!). I'm another long-time fan of 'Uncle' Tom. I have a small collection of 'Automobile Quarterly' and I'm sure they did a feature on the great man.
"Uncle" Tom McCahill wrote for Mechanix Illustrated and is generally considered the father of the modern auto magazine road tester. He invented the 0-60 bench mark .
As the owner of a 57 DeSoto FireFlite, I'd say the Chrysler products of the day were better engineered than their Ford and GM counterparts. Unfortunately they weren't as well put together as the competition. That's one reason late 50s Chrysler products are so rare.
Chrysler had what became the template for the modern three speed automatic transmission in 1956 with the Torque-Flite eight years before GM had their own equivalent in the Turbo-Hydramatic 400 and ten years before Ford came out with the C-6. Chrysler dropped two speed automatics after that and never looked back. GM soldiered on with four distinctively different automatics for eight more years and was still putting two speed boxes in some applications as late as 1971 or 1972 and Ford used the two-speed Ford-O-Matic 'till '64. They were the best engineered cars but the new '57 bodies were prone to early rust which caused a huge drop in sales in '58 coupled with the recession.
silverbird58 50s era Mopars are rare today because they rusted out at an alarming rate. Some great styling and performance with the hemis. My favorites were the '57 DeSoto Golden Adventurer and the '57 Chrysler 300C. Also loved the styling of the '60 Chrysler 300F.
LMart97 I'm sorry I left that impression as I think it's probably the best automatic prior to the Turbo-Hydramatic 400, I have both versions in a '53 and '56 Cadillac. What's ironic is that it was such a perfect example from day one. It was developed at the same time as Chrysler's Fluid-Drive, which to my assessment has all the disadvantages of both stick and automatics, with none of the advantages. On the other hand, the Hydra-Matic was fully automatic and enhanced both performance and economy through it's design, especially when the big V-8s came along. It also could handle the great torque of even the biggest engines, being last used in '64 Cadillac 429's in the Series 62 and 75 models and in Pontiac Bonnevilles and Star Chiefs with 389 and 421's. The other strange thing is that in spite of the example of the 4-speed Hydra, you still had years of experimentation with slushbucket torque converters in Buicks and Packards and countless two-speed units here and there before the advent of the three-speed torque-converter which set the pattern for the next 30-40 years.
I met McCahill in Sep. 1968, while on vacation in Florida. Got him to autograph my copy of his "Car Owners Guide" - Fawcett Publications. His style of writing, was on par with that of Mike Royko of The Chicago Daily News.
This film wasn't made for the public; it was for Chrysler dealers and salesmen, to assist in selling their vehicles. That's not explained anywhere in this posting. It's NOT supposed to be an impartial road test!
GM really did their best to overcome the messes of 1958, it got so out of hand with the chrome and stuff for everybody that year, GM more then others. The 1959's were in response to the Forward Look Chryslers .
I had total contact brakes in a 62 chrysler. Not only were they not self adjusting, they were only total contact on the front wheels not the rear. The fronts had 2 cylinders on each wheel and they constantly blew out the upper cylinder. I was not impressed with them. The car had so many oddball design problems that I got fed up with it after 6 years and was delighted to be rid of it
The slant six had one problem I recall all my older relatives agreeing on - unable to run well in wet weather. Looking back, it probably could have been fixed with an improved configuration of plug wires, distributor etc. but it stands out in my mind due to my Mom suffering these issues with a '65 Valiant for a few years.
Ironically, my '41 Plymouth stripper business coupe touted "all-weather ignition", with rubber-enclosed wires and plug connections and wiring neatly but securely suspended above the block by a special holder-spreader.
Chrysler enginering was flat out superior to Gm & Ford--that doesn't mean their cars were bad, just not on par with Chrysler. The only quality issue Chrysler had at the time was 1957 models were not rust-proofed as well as they should have been--there were incidents of early rusting in some cars--Not all models or all brands as intimated by less informed journalists. The host of this film is Tom McCahill, famous for decades as a writer for Popular Mechanics. He spoke in the jargon of the time.
It makes you wonder if this wasn't made by Chrysler with them fixing the results. It's pretty hard to believe that they would win every single test. In the long run, it wouldn't matter though, as the "Forward Look" Chryslers were known for being plagued with quality issues that didn't affect GM and Ford outside of the Edsel.
It's obvious in the cone tests that the other cars were carelessly driven to fail. It is even more obvious in the cornering tests. You can see that the front wheels aren't even turned enough to negotiate the corner. What a scam!
6:25 , he mentions the Mount Whitney road. Watch the Bogart movie "High Sierra" when Bogie charges up the mountain in a 1938 Plymouth. Same road they do these test on..
Jack A Umm since it's an internal sales film for Chrysler dealers, Of course THEY made the tests. Chevrolet and Pontiac aren't shown for the same reason Ford,Plymouth and Dodge aren't shown. This is for the upper priced lines. No one was "cross shopping" Chevrolet AND Imperial or Lincoln AND Plymouth. The lower priced lines likely had their own "test" film.
Funny thing is you never see Chrysler, Dodge, or Plymouths. You always see Caddys, Fords, Chevys for 58 cars. T birds, Vetts. The 58 Impala blows em all out of b the water. Christine, the 58 Plymouth Fury, and the Hemi engine is all Chrysler can be remembered for.
The first test made me chuckle. Early Torquflite Chryslers will shift to first at 25 when floored in Drive. The other cars won't. Notice the Chryslers pulling away fast at the start of the test. The torqueflight was designed many years later than the Hydramatic, Dynaflow or the BorgWarner Studebaker trans adapted by Ford.
Yes. The TorqueFlite Trans was the very first modern 3 speed automatic. Most modern automatics owe their existence to this transmission. In the muscle car era, the 727 Torqueflite and the GM THM400 were the best automatics.
Chryslers were usually a little lighter cars in class compared to GM. The braking must have been easier due to weight of the cars The hemi engines provided sufficient power for mopars. Chryslers were nice looking cars, but did not survive due to rust and overall poor manufacturing. Too bad the film wasn't remastered to see the detail of each car.
Hey!! That heavy set guy talking is Tom McCahill. He said the Edsel was THE car for 1958 and he'd buy one. You know, with good judgment like that, he could sell me a Chrysler. Yeah!! Right!!
I think the reason there were no Chevy's, Fords or Pontiac's was Chrysler wanted to show how their higher end vehicles would compete with those in the same category as GM, and Lincoln/Mercury. If comparison testing was done with Chevy, Ford or Pontiac, Plymouth and Dodge would more than likely be their competitors in the Chrysler line.
As a Cadillac fanatic. I’m disappointed in this 1958 demonstration for Cadillac. Nearly the most, to the most expensive car in the industry at the time, beat by Chrysler. But the Chryslers are unique in their own way, I am impressed by them.
Hi--heading for a couple of days to evaluate a 1972 Triumph tr6 for an article--been writing about cars since the 70's. When I return I'll post sources for you. I'm sure you have many first hand examples you could relate regarding "bad" cars you have encountered in your job. Understand that such examples reflect your experience and does not necessarily reflect brands or the industry as a whole. It is nice to know that you take an active interest in automobile quality. Need more like U in the biz
i agree on the 59 and 60, I have worked on a 60 and it was really easy. I'm working on a 73 and that is a little bit different. But, of course, driving it is great fun...like all old American cars, regardless of make!!
Also, these test cars were only about 58 years into car production. Todays hot cars have well over 100 years behind them. A V6 'Stang smokin' an old one? Sure. It's lighter for one. Bet you won't see a V6 'Stang around in 42 years, tho. When's the last time you saw a Mustang II V6 around? All gone! Junked! The old muscle cars may not have been efficient, but the soul! The torque! George: U sorry you got rid of the '67 GTX? Didn't like to stop or turn, but...SOUL! TORQUE! Scary 30 to 70 power!
Yessss! The problem with centerplane brakes! My 1961 Chrysler 300G (letter car) has them and I also know about brake fade! In all honesty, I'm not sure if in '58 the mopars had centerplane but chryslers were not known for well braking at all. Even my '58 Mercury Montclair has a little issue on brake fade as well but my merc is way less prone to pull or even jerk a little to the right or left like my Chrysler sometimes does. Either way, I'm never selling either car!! ;-D (from husband of Giselle)
To the best of my knowledge the cars used in that test were: Chrysler: Windsor, Saratoga, New Yorker Imperial: base model at the time Oldsmobile: 88 Buick: Super, Roadmaster Cadillac: Series 62 Mercury: Monterey Lincoln: Capri
yeah, i had a 62 chysler. The steering was so effortless that it felt like the steering wheel was not even connected to the car. I wasn't to pleased with the automatic transmission with NO PARK FUNCTION. Just a faulty parking brake with a drum on the drive shaft
62s had the 727 tf with a park function (lever under the push buttons) the brake drum on the rear of the tranny was bulletproof and worked great but ate lots of power.
Chryslers are generally considered to be better engineered than GM and Ford vehicles of that period. One problem the late 1950s Chryslers had was rust. The 1958 GM cars often had poor fit and finish,
Hi sirs; I´m an automobile historian, and I only can to say it´s not a propaganda film. Ford and GM cars were very well designed in general, but Chryslers, specially Plymouths, were the best in the low price field, not in 1958, but since ever. In those times, publicity said less lies than today:"Plymouth traditionally good engeniereing" in the ads is true, because Plymouths are knowed by historians for their good design across time. And stops better because they had Total Contact Brakes.
Obviously a test put together by Chrysler Corp. I own a primo condition 1958 Plymouth Fury, and can attest to it's acceleration and handling. it's front brakes and hydraulics have been upgraded to discs - necessary to stop a 3700 lb auto.
Lee Crt Since it's an "internal sales film" for MoPar dealer, Naturally it's to show the Chryslers in the best light. On a promotional film during "The Pepsi Challenge" years do you think they would show all the people who picked Coca-Cola over Pepsi to a room full of Pepsi distributors?
Lee Crt Since it's an "internal sales film" for MoPar dealer, Naturally it's to show the Chryslers in the best light. On a promotional film during "The Pepsi Challenge" years do you think they would show all the people who picked Coca-Cola over Pepsi to a room full of Pepsi distributors?
I agree. I also believe the Chrysler Corp vehicles - when running properly - were better performers overall. However, they had serious quality control issues, harming the bran's reputation for "superior engineering" for years to come.
5:15 etc. I was mad on first seeing the turn tests years ago. GMs & Fords are jerked into turns - not Mopar cars! Tom did get big flak for bowing to one make, and I think did no more such shows.
Seems more like a Chrysler commercial, i believe the acceleration but braking,,, not sure? I have seem many 60's Chrysler vehicles in panic stops, seems the rear wheels/suspension are prone to hop, check car and track for the videos
@Mr.Sloika Granted, newer cars have made obvious strides in several areas, but being they are computer designed and robotically made, they lack the character that older cars possessed. Not all old cars were built the same back then. If you ordered them right, you could improve on the standard issue. My '65 Impala sedan has proven this in areas of handling/steering. Originally equipped with h.d. suspension, I have impressed many with the roadability, not to mention the reliability of the 283 eng.
Mopars may have handled and accelerated better in '58, but GM cars were better quality, as they still are to this day. Good to see it in the Mopar perspective, though.
See what you and the other gentlemen in these comments, do not understand is that the man in the video is not referring to a flat chested WOMAN librarian, it's an urban joke about people, in general, who work as book keeps and usually tend to hold their books so close to their chest, like it's going to fly away, and so the joke is that all book keepers have a special mutated, abnormal flat chest. Which this can apply to either sex, as men aren't perfectly flat chested anyways. It's what they would call a joke! It's not sexualized, it's not poking fun at flat chested women, it's just a joke that died out over time, like many other sayings or dialects, that only older folk would understand.
At 3:22, thank goodness those fake hay wagons were not real school buses filled with "Dreamers!" This is just one more reason to choose Chrysler over Ford and GM!
What year Caddy are you working on? I guess it can depend upon the year, even by one or two. I will say, the quality of a 1959 or 1960 Cadillac beats by far the quality of a 1958. I have been impressed by how things fit and were put together on '59's and '60 offerings I have helped to work upon. But they all rusted, no mater which company involved and because the GM products were usually more optioned out, they were harder to work on. Mopars are mechanically rugged, period!
Norman Mcgill Since it's an "internal sales film" for the Chrysler / Imperial sales force, Obviously it's written and produced by / for Chrysler Corporation......
except they show their comparison... are you saying the fords/gm cars were going faster? Go look at part 2 and you can see them following each other at EXACTLY the same speed. GM and Ford were junk compared, Car Life and Mechanics Illustrated backed up these same findings.
I owned a '57 Desoto Firedome that had sheet metal so thin, you could deflect it with moderate finger pressure; that had never been true of MoPar products prior to '57 -- and I've had a few of those, too; my '52 was built like a tank. It wasn't a rust issue -- although they also rusted like crazy; it was that in the meantime somebody figured out how to save $25 per car, or something like that, by thinning out the metal gauge in many places.
Hands down a hell of a great powerplant. Dropped in a '61 bubbletop Impala and you have one of the greatest Chevys to ever take the road, great styling and tons of thrust(later models are just as potent and handsome but there is something special about that 1st year). Just a little skittish in the handling dept., but then they were never intended to run slaloms. Just American iron doing what American iron does best! Rattles your fillings out! Today's cars are more competent but boring.
Actually the problem with All of our Auto companies has been a perception of quality issues. Polling data in fact conflicts with this perception. The real problem is staleness in the product lines coupled with ill-informed buying practices buy the public in general, and of course wages that prevent American vehicles from being competitive in material used and technologies featured. It is what as destroyed ALL manufactoring in the US from electronics to clothing to furniture to autos etc.
But the GM and Fords and even some of the more upscale independents felt a little more insulated and quiet, not as, well, connected to the road. Folks tastes back then wanted the isolated feeling. Thus more GM/Ford sold. And those two, actually the GM's were definately of better build quality, many more survived as we see today. Chrysler unfortunately had a lot of teething problems with the new 'Forward Look' cars. But they looked awesome, I wish I had the funds and luck to find a nice sample!
Having driven all of those cars back then, I can vouch for the Chrysler's handling. But they showed the Buick to be quicker than the Olds...not in this lifetime. The Buick made a tremendous amount of noise when you accelerated hard, but the Dynaflop trans ate up all it's power. The Buick should have out performed the Chrysler on the down hill test for the same reason. When you let off the gas in low gear on a Buick it was like tossing out an anchor.
These promotional sales films are usually rigged in some way, esp the later ones. In one I saw a 66 SS396 badly outran a '66 GTO. Sure, if the Chevy had a 4spd and the GTO had an automatic. Run that Chevy against a GTO with Tri-Power and a close ratio with 3.90 gears. Completely different story. Take these promotional sales videos with a grain of salt...
I have had one Chrysler product in my life, a 1967 Plymouth Belvedere wagon purchased second hand. Loved the engine (318 cid) and tranny (TorqueFlite). The front suspension was all together something else. I was every 4 to 6 months having to replace a suspension component, bushings, idler arm, tie rod ends, you name it. Has turned me off of Mopar since that time. I am sure Chrysler is now just like other manufacturers, cookie cutter technology.
Chrysler corp. marketed the first pratical alternator in 1960 (standard equip. 1961)before Ford and GM. First modern radio, saftey cushioned dashboards, first to use a wind tunnel to improve aerodynamics, first truly aerodynamic cars,developed an air cooled radial engined car in the early 30s that heavily influenced Volkswagen design first almost fully automatic trans. first keyed ignition, solid-state ignition,no points or condensor.the list goes on and on. No 59 make or model had one.
GM had the first fully automatic transmission in 1940, the Hydramatic. Chrysler offered a variety of semi automatic transmissions from 1941 onward.But they didn't offer a fully automatic transmission,the Powerflite,until late in the '53 model year.In fact,they didn't offer a fully automatic transmission on Plymouth until very late in the '54 model year! This is one reason why Chrysler sales were very poor in 1954. So in that respect they were behind the other companies in engineering.
voitdive Tom praised other cars in his career, But he legitimately was a fan of the Imperial, So he'd be a guy Chrysler would want. I don't think he was over all a "shill", But he certainly got paid to appear in this film.
Turkeydoodlers This is not a "movie" or "ad" It's an internal film to get the Chrysler/Imperial dealer network "hyped" up. No one saw this at the theater or on TV., just in sales "seminars".
While it's more than possible that Chrysler provided juiced cars for the tests, if you've driven one of the era you know they were damn fast. 300-series, anyone?
I also ask why in the 1957 and 1958 Nascar races (Orange Speedway, Daytona Beach and several others), there is no Chrysler, Dodge or Plymouth. No car from Chrysler Corporation. They just ran and won Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Chevrolet, Ford. If the Chrysler cars were so powerful, so fast, with such good brakes and good suspension as Tom Mc Cahill intended to demonstrate in this video, the situation in the main races would have been very different.
Find a 57 to 59 Chrysler product and look at the top of the windshield frame. It overhangs the windshield by probably an inch. This lip made no difference at stock speeds, but above 100 it really handicapped the Chrysler cars. Chrysler also did not sponsor a NASCAR effort, in 55 and 56 Chrysler 300s won everything with a million dollar sponsorship from Kiekhaufer's Mercury Outboards but they withdrew after 56. Pontiac and Olds were providing factory assistance by 57, as was Ford. There was a 57 Dodge D500 offered with the optional 354 hemi from the 56 Chrysler 300 that was as hot as any car available but didn't do well without sponsorship and had the aerodynamic problem.
Pha Q Yes, The concept of wider track width started in '55. The "Wide Track" (as a "slogan".) started in '59 and used until the early 1970s. afterwards too much component sharing among the A and B bodies effectively killed of any differences between Pontiac and Chevrolet.
read ANY 57-61 car magazine. most were paid by GM but all had to admit Mopars were by far the best handling domestic cars. not a single road test that does not praise the superior mopar torsion bar suspension.
This was obviously a Chrysler promoted side show. They should have put in a few other tests like which one had the most rattles etc.. Chrysler in 1958 would have won that too. easily lol
This shows deceptive advertising in favor of the Chrysler Corporation. Notice they didn't let you look ubder the hood of each car for starters. Some of the 50's Chrysler products came with factory speed equipment like a cross-ram 2 four barrell setup just for starters. If they would have included the 58 Pontiac it would have blown the Mopar stuff away! Notice that the GM & Fard cars always seem to aim for the sandy side of the road going into the turn. What a bunch of crap!
My understanding of this era of cars has been that Chrysler was always known for having superior engineering while GM and to a lesser extent Ford were known more for their styling departments as being superior. So these tests do not seem that far from what might be the truth actually. My belief is that they all were innovators in their own way, but Chrysler was always pushing the superior drive-train and handling envelope in hopes of winning over customers while GM and Ford pursued those buyers who are sold more on a car that will stop you dead in your tracks based on the way it looks. And this has always been pretty obvious to me just by looking a GM's output under Harley Earl in the '50s and even after he left in the '60s. Those cars are incredible looking, each and every division of GM. And Ford did have nice looking cars, but especially the Mercury division. Lastly you have Chrysler with their bullet proof slant 6 225 engine along with the incredibly reliable V8 318 engine, all topped off with the 413 Wedge engine. Pair any of these with an ultra reliable and smooth TorqueFlite transmission and torsion bar suspension which really does make a huge difference, just as shown in this video. The only personal experience I can add is comparing a '62 Cadillac and a '68 Dodge Dart, both of which I have owned and drove many many miles. I know they are very different in size and type of car, but they are equally different in their styling and engineering. My Caddy was like driving a big bobbing in the ocean boat, that if I had tried to handle any of the tests they tried in this video, I have no doubt my Caddy would have performed similarly. I loved that car, it was fun as hell to drive and got tons of attention because it looked amazing! But it nickled and dimed me to death because of all the upkeep. It's engineering came nowhere close to any Chrysler I am familiar with. And then there was my tough as nails Dodge Dart. It was more like driving a small nimble go cart, even though by today's standards it was a Big car. It sat 6 incredibly comfortably and 8 people in it was perfectly doable. And with that many people in the Dart, it would've handled like a champ on these tests. I cannot speak for Ford as I have never owned a Ford. Anyway, my feeling is that all those writing that this is rigged are those die hard Ford or rah rah GM types who never will give others a fair shake just because they gotta have a favorite for no other reason than they gotta have a favorite. And therefore Chrysler rigged this. Uh ... I'm not too sure about that. At least not from my experience.
Those GM and Ford products also out weighed the Chrysler cars. That makes it harder to stop and move around cones. I will take any of those 58 GM cars over the Forward Look crowd. We're swzybats applied to the GM Zand Ford products? Just asking.Steve Spatola
IMO the Chrysler’s never had the ride of Cadillac or Lincoln. Just be careful when driving. I mean who waits that long before hitting the break when there’s a tractor in the middle of the road
I looked, looked again, and it does seem the tests were leaned in favor of the Chrysler products, as would any company do with their product. But this is just my subjective opinion. Objectively, Chrysler went into the ring with more 'fit' cars. Again, being subjective, I have had the priveledge of driving all sorts of old cars from the period here. The Chrysler products from that time were by far the most roadable, and agile of the bunch. They felt lighter, more 'tinny'...
I've got a 63 300, the second one I've owned since about 87'. Also owned a 63 Imperial LeBaron for several years before I traded it off to a chrysler collector I know. My 300 now is running really well. I sometimes take speed bumps at 20 25 or 30 just to see if I can validate this add, and maybe I'm biased, but this car is tougher than a 1 ton truck. You can also take a corner, dirt road gravel paved, no matter, comfortably at 15 20, even 25 mph without sliding out fishtailing etc. So imo, there's something to this torsion bar leaf spring air shock combo. Most people just don't even understand the ad.
"Now the Imperial, it's glued to the road, and corners as flat as a bookkeeper's chest." I love the '50s.
That's pretty flat! Lol
Lol called the Windsor catlike lol
Millions think like you do, which is one reason why Trump will be re-elected, big-league.
@@bboucharde shut up, what does your comment about our President have to do about cars or the sub comment thread?
See what you and the other gentlemen in these comments, do not understand is that the man in the video is not referring to a flat chested WOMAN librarian, it's an urban joke about people, in general, who work as book keeps and usually tend to hold their books so close to their chest, like it's going to fly away, and so the joke is that all book keepers have a special mutated, abnormal flat chest. Which this can apply to either sex, as men aren't perfectly flat chested anyways.
It's what they would call a joke!
It's not sexualized, it's not poking fun at flat chested women, it's just a joke that died out over time, like many other sayings or dialects, that only older folk would understand. I wouldn't expect someone like you to understand. Of course you are a product of an over sexualized culture and your first reaction to hearing this joke is to automatically assume it is referring to flat chested women.
Hope I was able to make that clear.
@@bboucharde hahahahaha! Guess that ship sank! Boo loser.
One thing I liked about 1958 cards, were the double headlights, first year for them, with nearly all 1958,s.
+Jack A ,
In 1957 Chrysler Corporation offered quad headlights as an option on their
Imperial, Chrysler and DeSoto lines. Mercury also offered them as an option.
They were standard on the 1957 Nash Ambassador and Cadillac Eldorado Brougham. Some states outlawed quad headlights in 1957, until the next year, when legislation made them legal in all states. The 1957 Lincoln offered two headlights with slightly smaller "road" lights below them, giving a quad light look.
that's what makes them ugly,
Tom McCahill wrote for Mechanix Illustrated. I do not recall him ever writing for Popular Mechanics though he may have done a few short articles for them which I am unaware of. He usually had a couple full road test articles in every issue of Mechanix Illustrated as well as an excellent column called "Mail for McCahill" in which readers would submit written letters to Tom and would most often receive sarcastic replies from the crusty old curmudgeon. I believe that after Tom's passing in the mid 70s, Mechanix Illustrated hired some ghost writer to continue the Mail for McCahill column but it was never the same. I still have about 100 issues of Mechanix Illustrated stashed away in an old trunk and from time to time, I pull out a few to peruse.. RIP Tom Ken Greenberg Chicago, Illinois
Tom MaCahill! First time I ever seen a video of this guy. Been reading his car tests during the 1960’s
Hello from France (via England!). I'm another long-time fan of 'Uncle' Tom. I have a small collection of 'Automobile Quarterly' and I'm sure they did a feature on the great man.
"Uncle" Tom McCahill wrote for Mechanix Illustrated and is generally considered the father of the modern auto magazine road tester. He invented the 0-60 bench mark .
As the owner of a 57 DeSoto FireFlite, I'd say the Chrysler products of the day were better engineered than their Ford and GM counterparts. Unfortunately they weren't as well put together as the competition. That's one reason late 50s Chrysler products are so rare.
Chrysler had what became the template for the modern three speed automatic transmission in 1956 with the Torque-Flite eight years before GM had their own equivalent in the Turbo-Hydramatic 400 and ten years before Ford came out with the C-6. Chrysler dropped two speed automatics after that and never looked back. GM soldiered on with four distinctively different automatics for eight more years and was still putting two speed boxes in some applications as late as 1971 or 1972 and Ford used the two-speed Ford-O-Matic 'till '64. They were the best engineered cars but the new '57 bodies were prone to early rust which caused a huge drop in sales in '58 coupled with the recession.
silverbird58 I know, the best engineered suspension in the industry! So much has been lost over the past 50 years!
VictrolaJazz What do you have against the GM 4-speed Hydromatic? This predated the Torque-flite by years and was a great transmission!
silverbird58 50s era Mopars are rare today because they rusted out at an alarming rate. Some great styling and performance with the hemis. My favorites were the '57 DeSoto Golden Adventurer and the '57 Chrysler 300C. Also loved the styling of the '60 Chrysler 300F.
LMart97 I'm sorry I left that impression as I think it's probably the best automatic prior to the Turbo-Hydramatic 400, I have both versions in a '53 and '56 Cadillac. What's ironic is that it was such a perfect example from day one. It was developed at the same time as Chrysler's Fluid-Drive, which to my assessment has all the disadvantages of both stick and automatics, with none of the advantages. On the other hand, the Hydra-Matic was fully automatic and enhanced both performance and economy through it's design, especially when the big V-8s came along. It also could handle the great torque of even the biggest engines, being last used in '64 Cadillac 429's in the Series 62 and 75 models and in Pontiac Bonnevilles and Star Chiefs with 389 and 421's. The other strange thing is that in spite of the example of the 4-speed Hydra, you still had years of experimentation with slushbucket torque converters in Buicks and Packards and countless two-speed units here and there before the advent of the three-speed torque-converter which set the pattern for the next 30-40 years.
I met McCahill in Sep. 1968, while on vacation in Florida. Got him to autograph my copy of his "Car Owners Guide" - Fawcett Publications. His style of writing, was on par with that of Mike Royko of The Chicago Daily News.
This film wasn't made for the public; it was for Chrysler dealers and salesmen, to assist in selling their vehicles. That's not explained anywhere in this posting. It's NOT supposed to be an impartial road test!
GM really did their best to overcome the messes of 1958, it got so out of hand with the chrome and stuff for everybody that year, GM more then others. The 1959's were in response to the Forward Look Chryslers .
I had total contact brakes in a 62 chrysler. Not only were they not self adjusting, they were only total contact on the front wheels not the rear. The fronts had 2 cylinders on each wheel and they constantly blew out the upper cylinder. I was not impressed with them. The car had so many oddball design problems that I got fed up with it after 6 years and was delighted to be rid of it
Your Are Right On That. But The Chrylers were Praised For There Handling During this Era.
Chrysler Power. Nothing has never beaten it. Decades of testing. Nothing better than Chrysler Corporation
The slant six had one problem I recall all my older relatives agreeing on - unable to run well in wet weather.
Looking back, it probably could have been fixed with an improved configuration of plug wires, distributor etc. but it stands out in my mind due to my Mom suffering these issues with a '65 Valiant for a few years.
Ironically, my '41 Plymouth stripper business coupe touted "all-weather ignition", with rubber-enclosed wires and plug connections and wiring neatly but securely suspended above the block by a special holder-spreader.
My Dad's 1963 Dodge Dart suffered in wet weather.
Chrysler enginering was flat out superior to Gm & Ford--that doesn't mean their cars were bad, just not on par with Chrysler. The only quality issue Chrysler had at the time was 1957 models were not rust-proofed as well as they should have been--there were incidents of early rusting in some cars--Not all models or all brands as intimated by less informed journalists. The host of this film is Tom McCahill, famous for decades as a writer for Popular Mechanics. He spoke in the jargon of the time.
thats my baby... i love chrysler please dont hate....
It makes you wonder if this wasn't made by Chrysler with them fixing the results. It's pretty hard to believe that they would win every single test. In the long run, it wouldn't matter though, as the "Forward Look" Chryslers were known for being plagued with quality issues that didn't affect GM and Ford outside of the Edsel.
It's obvious in the cone tests that the other cars were carelessly driven to fail. It is even more obvious in the cornering tests. You can see that the front wheels aren't even turned enough to negotiate the corner. What a scam!
6:25 , he mentions the Mount Whitney road. Watch the Bogart movie "High Sierra" when Bogie charges up the mountain in a 1938 Plymouth. Same road they do these test on..
I think these tests were made by Chrysler, lol. I noticed the 2 fastest GM cars are not there, that would be the Chevrolet and Pontiac.
Jack A Umm since it's an internal sales film for Chrysler dealers, Of course THEY made the tests. Chevrolet and Pontiac aren't shown for the same reason Ford,Plymouth and Dodge aren't shown. This is for the upper priced lines. No one was "cross shopping" Chevrolet AND Imperial or Lincoln AND Plymouth. The lower priced lines likely had their own "test" film.
+lucaswinders Chrysler wanted to show how their higher end vehicles would compete with those in the same category as GM, and Lincoln/Mercury.
Now it would be imports compting who has the best CGI graphics because there so cowardly enough to admit that plastic is not good for cars.
Funny thing is you never see Chrysler, Dodge, or Plymouths. You always see Caddys, Fords, Chevys for 58 cars. T birds, Vetts. The 58 Impala blows em all out of b the water. Christine, the 58 Plymouth Fury, and the Hemi engine is all Chrysler can be remembered for.
no the 58 Impala was cr@p... utter garbage compared to the Plymouth
The first test made me chuckle. Early Torquflite Chryslers will shift to first at 25 when floored in Drive. The other cars won't. Notice the Chryslers pulling away fast at the start of the test. The torqueflight was designed many years later than the Hydramatic, Dynaflow or the BorgWarner Studebaker trans adapted by Ford.
Yes. The TorqueFlite Trans was the very first modern 3 speed automatic. Most modern automatics owe their existence to this transmission. In the muscle car era, the 727 Torqueflite and the GM THM400 were the best automatics.
it shifts to 1rst at 25? i guess you mean 2nd and at wot the 58 tflites shifts at around 45 to second and 50+ for a HP unit.
He means downshifts, not upshifts.
Chryslers were usually a little lighter cars in class compared to GM. The braking must have been easier due to weight of the cars The hemi engines provided sufficient power for mopars. Chryslers were nice looking cars, but did not survive due to rust and overall poor manufacturing. Too bad the film wasn't remastered to see the detail of each car.
Hey!! That heavy set guy talking is Tom McCahill. He said the Edsel was THE car for 1958 and he'd buy one. You know, with good judgment like that, he could sell me a Chrysler. Yeah!! Right!!
They sure did like fins on cars back then!
I think the reason there were no Chevy's, Fords or Pontiac's was Chrysler wanted to show how their higher end vehicles would compete with those in the same category as GM, and Lincoln/Mercury. If comparison testing was done with Chevy, Ford or Pontiac, Plymouth and Dodge would more than likely be their competitors in the Chrysler line.
What model is it?
Back in the 60's, the city of Jacksonville Beach used Imperials for their police cars because they were so fast.
As a Cadillac fanatic. I’m disappointed in this 1958 demonstration for Cadillac. Nearly the most, to the most expensive car in the industry at the time, beat by Chrysler. But the Chryslers are unique in their own way, I am impressed by them.
@9:15 "It's glued to the road and corners as flat as a bookkeeper's chest." 😆
Hi--heading for a couple of days to evaluate a 1972 Triumph tr6 for an article--been writing about cars since the 70's. When I return I'll post sources for you. I'm sure you have many first hand examples you could relate regarding "bad" cars you have encountered in your job. Understand that such examples reflect your experience and does not necessarily reflect brands or the industry as a whole. It is nice to know that you take an active interest in automobile quality. Need more like U in the biz
i agree on the 59 and 60, I have worked on a 60 and it was really easy. I'm working on a 73 and that is a little bit different. But, of course, driving it is great fun...like all old American cars, regardless of make!!
Is it possible all mechanics, drivers, and judges worked for Mopar? Could that have influenced the results? Yes and Yes.
Also, these test cars were only about 58 years into car production. Todays hot cars have well over 100 years behind them. A V6 'Stang smokin' an old one? Sure. It's lighter for one. Bet you won't see a V6 'Stang around in 42 years, tho. When's the last time you saw a Mustang II V6 around? All gone! Junked! The old muscle cars may not have been efficient, but the soul! The torque! George: U sorry you got rid of the '67 GTX? Didn't like to stop or turn, but...SOUL! TORQUE! Scary 30 to 70 power!
Yessss! The problem with centerplane brakes! My 1961 Chrysler 300G (letter car) has them and I also know about brake fade! In all honesty, I'm not sure if in '58 the mopars had centerplane but chryslers were not known for well braking at all. Even my '58 Mercury Montclair has a little issue on brake fade as well but my merc is way less prone to pull or even jerk a little to the right or left like my Chrysler sometimes does. Either way, I'm never selling either car!! ;-D (from husband of Giselle)
To the best of my knowledge the cars used in that test were:
Chrysler: Windsor, Saratoga, New Yorker
Imperial: base model at the time
Oldsmobile: 88
Buick: Super, Roadmaster
Cadillac: Series 62
Mercury: Monterey
Lincoln: Capri
5000 pounds +Drum brakes= You're gonna hit something!!
aand diagonal rims !!!
those centerplane brakes were terrible on my 62 chrysler. The front brakes had two wheel cylinders per wheel. They constantly blew the upper cylinder
Guaranteed this was put together by Chrysler, and All the test just happen to vein their favor
same findings as all the car review magazines... GM and Ford sucked
yeah, i had a 62 chysler. The steering was so effortless that it felt like the steering wheel was not even connected to the car. I wasn't to pleased with the automatic transmission with NO PARK FUNCTION. Just a faulty parking brake with a drum on the drive shaft
62s had the 727 tf with a park function (lever under the push buttons) the brake drum on the rear of the tranny was bulletproof and worked great but ate lots of power.
My mom's '53 Plymouth had the driveshaft brake, which faded so quickly, it was useless in emergency situations.
where was this filmed
was it on the us-395
Chryslers are generally considered to be better engineered than GM and Ford vehicles of that period. One problem the late 1950s Chryslers had was rust. The 1958 GM cars often had poor fit and finish,
I sure enjoyed Uncle Tom McCahill back in the day. It was interesting hearing his voice.
thamks
Chrysler was always the leader in engineering but could never get it right in promoting themselves. should have done more of this stuff.
So this is where false advertisement started.
Hi sirs; I´m an automobile historian, and I only can to say it´s not a propaganda film. Ford and GM cars were very well designed in general, but Chryslers, specially Plymouths, were the best in the low price field, not in 1958, but since ever. In those times, publicity said less lies than today:"Plymouth traditionally good engeniereing" in the ads is true, because Plymouths are knowed by historians for their good design across time. And stops better because they had Total Contact Brakes.
Good God those cars are huge!
Obviously a test put together by Chrysler Corp. I own a primo condition 1958 Plymouth Fury, and can attest to it's acceleration and handling. it's front brakes and hydraulics have been upgraded to discs - necessary to stop a 3700 lb auto.
Lee Crt Since it's an "internal sales film" for MoPar dealer, Naturally it's to show the Chryslers in the best light. On a promotional film during "The Pepsi Challenge" years do you think they would show all the people who picked Coca-Cola over Pepsi to a room full of Pepsi distributors?
Lee Crt Since it's an "internal sales film" for MoPar dealer, Naturally it's to show the Chryslers in the best light. On a promotional film during "The Pepsi Challenge" years do you think they would show all the people who picked Coca-Cola over Pepsi to a room full of Pepsi distributors?
I agree. I also believe the Chrysler Corp vehicles - when running properly - were better performers overall. However, they had serious quality control issues, harming the bran's reputation for "superior engineering" for years to come.
Lee Crt
5:15 etc. I was mad on first seeing the turn tests years ago. GMs & Fords are jerked into turns - not Mopar cars! Tom did get big flak for bowing to one make, and I think did no more such shows.
They look great! Where can I buy one? Lol
Try Hemmings or Craigslist, Chryslers are rare
Great piece of motoring history - ahh Mopar
Seems more like a Chrysler commercial, i believe the acceleration but braking,,, not sure?
I have seem many 60's Chrysler vehicles in panic stops, seems the rear wheels/suspension are prone to hop, check car and track for the videos
jim dandy This is an "internal sales" film. It's for the benefit of Chrysler/Imperial dealers. (Not a commercial or TV show, in the usual sense).
@Mr.Sloika Granted, newer cars have made obvious strides in several areas, but being they are computer designed and robotically made, they lack the character that older cars possessed. Not all old cars were built the same back then. If you ordered them right, you could improve on the standard issue. My '65 Impala sedan has proven this in areas of handling/steering. Originally equipped with h.d. suspension, I have impressed many with the roadability, not to mention the reliability of the 283 eng.
I grew up in a Dodge family. I drive GM stuff.
The Buick Layed A Patch When It Took Off
Mopars may have handled and accelerated better in '58, but GM cars were better quality, as they still are to this day. Good to see it in the Mopar perspective, though.
better body/trim alignment and rustproofing? YES. better quality drivetrains/suspension systems? NO
Is that Tom McCahill doing the voiceover and more than a few on-camera appearances?
They were beautiful, fast, and great handlers but "Gee I wonder" which car had less rust and mechanical problems 3 years later 🤔🤔🤔😂😂😂😂
Who is the main presenter?
At 9:21 "it corners as flat as a bookeeper's chest" That should help win over the female buyers.
See what you and the other gentlemen in these comments, do not understand is that the man in the video is not referring to a flat chested WOMAN librarian, it's an urban joke about people, in general, who work as book keeps and usually tend to hold their books so close to their chest, like it's going to fly away, and so the joke is that all book keepers have a special mutated, abnormal flat chest. Which this can apply to either sex, as men aren't perfectly flat chested anyways.
It's what they would call a joke!
It's not sexualized, it's not poking fun at flat chested women, it's just a joke that died out over time, like many other sayings or dialects, that only older folk would understand.
GREASER1959 You sir are completely out of touch with the current reality beyond say the fiction of Fox News.
@@sharedknowledge6640No. FoxNews is best.
At 3:22, thank goodness those fake hay wagons were not real school buses filled with "Dreamers!" This is just one more reason to choose Chrysler over Ford and GM!
In the suspension on the Buick Roadmaster, yes, there were. OHHH...you mean on the steering wheel! My mistake...sorry about that. :)
What year Caddy are you working on? I guess it can depend upon the year, even by one or two. I will say, the quality of a 1959 or 1960 Cadillac beats by far the quality of a 1958. I have been impressed by how things fit and were put together on '59's and '60 offerings I have helped to work upon. But they all rusted, no mater which company involved and because the GM products were usually more optioned out, they were harder to work on. Mopars are mechanically rugged, period!
"Corners as flat as a bookkeeper's chest"? LOL! Ya think they could say that today?
Written and produced by your friends at Chrysler.
Norman Mcgill Since it's an "internal sales film" for the Chrysler / Imperial sales force, Obviously it's written and produced by / for Chrysler Corporation......
Must be completely unbiased. Right? Lol
gosh, how could you tell?
Chrysler Division. If it were the Corporation there'd be Dodges and Plymouths along too. Oh, and DeSoto.
except they show their comparison... are you saying the fords/gm cars were going faster? Go look at part 2 and you can see them following each other at EXACTLY the same speed. GM and Ford were junk compared, Car Life and Mechanics Illustrated backed up these same findings.
@cadrolls1 Chrysler was also notorious for rust problems too.
I owned a '57 Desoto Firedome that had sheet metal so thin, you could deflect it with moderate finger pressure; that had never been true of MoPar products prior to '57 -- and I've had a few of those, too; my '52 was built like a tank. It wasn't a rust issue -- although they also rusted like crazy; it was that in the meantime somebody figured out how to save $25 per car, or something like that, by thinning out the metal gauge in many places.
Hands down a hell of a great powerplant. Dropped in a '61 bubbletop Impala and you have one of the greatest Chevys to ever take the road, great styling and tons of thrust(later models are just as potent and handsome but there is something special about that 1st year). Just a little skittish in the handling dept., but then they were never intended to run slaloms. Just American iron doing what American iron does best! Rattles your fillings out! Today's cars are more competent but boring.
There was a recession in 1958.
What no airbags?
It's still hard to beat a Hemi !😉
Chrysler probably had the HD suspensions while the others the standard suspension. Also the Chryslers spear to have lower center of gravity
Actually the problem with All of our Auto companies has been a perception of quality issues. Polling data in fact conflicts with this perception. The real problem is staleness in the product lines coupled with ill-informed buying practices buy the public in general, and of course wages that prevent American vehicles from being competitive in material used and technologies featured. It is what as destroyed ALL manufactoring in the US from electronics to clothing to furniture to autos etc.
I don't fully believe this. The Chrysler cars couldn't have been the only cars to have passed those tests.
But the GM and Fords and even some of the more upscale independents felt a little more insulated and quiet, not as, well, connected to the road. Folks tastes back then wanted the isolated feeling. Thus more GM/Ford sold. And those two, actually the GM's were definately of better build quality, many more survived as we see today. Chrysler unfortunately had a lot of teething problems with the new 'Forward Look' cars. But they looked awesome, I wish I had the funds and luck to find a nice sample!
Having driven all of those cars back then, I can vouch for the Chrysler's handling. But they showed the Buick to be quicker than the Olds...not in this lifetime. The Buick made a tremendous amount of noise when you accelerated hard, but the Dynaflop trans ate up all it's power. The Buick should have out performed the Chrysler on the down hill test for the same reason. When you let off the gas in low gear on a Buick it was like tossing out an anchor.
These promotional sales films are usually rigged in some way, esp the later ones. In one I saw a 66 SS396 badly outran a '66 GTO. Sure, if the Chevy had a 4spd and the GTO had an automatic. Run that Chevy against a GTO with Tri-Power and a close ratio with 3.90 gears. Completely different story. Take these promotional sales videos with a grain of salt...
I have had one Chrysler product in my life, a 1967 Plymouth Belvedere wagon purchased second hand. Loved the engine (318 cid) and tranny (TorqueFlite). The front suspension was all together something else. I was every 4 to 6 months having to replace a suspension component, bushings, idler arm, tie rod ends, you name it. Has turned me off of Mopar since that time. I am sure Chrysler is now just like other manufacturers, cookie cutter technology.
At this point Packard was Studebaker's red-headed stepchild. A mere ghost of the once mighty Pacards that came before.
Chrysler corp. marketed the first pratical alternator in 1960 (standard equip. 1961)before Ford and GM. First modern radio, saftey cushioned dashboards, first to use a wind tunnel to improve aerodynamics, first truly aerodynamic cars,developed an air cooled radial engined car in the early 30s that heavily influenced Volkswagen design first almost fully automatic trans. first keyed ignition, solid-state ignition,no points or condensor.the list goes on and on. No 59 make or model had one.
GM had the first fully automatic transmission in 1940, the Hydramatic. Chrysler offered a variety of semi automatic transmissions from 1941 onward.But they didn't offer a fully automatic transmission,the Powerflite,until late in the '53 model year.In fact,they didn't offer a fully automatic transmission on Plymouth until very late in the '54 model year! This is one reason why Chrysler sales were very poor in 1954. So in that respect they were behind the other companies in engineering.
I read old Popular Mekanix mags my grandfather left behind while on the crapper, Toms the best
+Rex Holes *Mechanics
TheReapersSon Maybe confused with Mechanix Illustrated? Remember "Mimi" 😀
voitdive Tom praised other cars in his career, But he legitimately was a fan of the Imperial, So he'd be a guy Chrysler would want. I don't think he was over all a "shill", But he certainly got paid to appear in this film.
Sorry no car fall at the end
Geesh you think this movie is trying to sell Chrysler brand lol?
Turkeydoodlers This is not a "movie" or "ad" It's an internal film to get the Chrysler/Imperial dealer network "hyped" up. No one saw this at the theater or on TV., just in sales "seminars".
8:00 slow down the speed to .25 and it looks like they are intentionally running the cars into the dirt before fishtailing.
While it's more than possible that Chrysler provided juiced cars for the tests, if you've driven one of the era you know they were damn fast. 300-series, anyone?
I also ask why in the 1957 and 1958 Nascar races (Orange Speedway, Daytona Beach and several others), there is no Chrysler, Dodge or Plymouth. No car from Chrysler Corporation. They just ran and won Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Chevrolet, Ford.
If the Chrysler cars were so powerful, so fast, with such good brakes and good suspension as Tom Mc Cahill intended to demonstrate in this video, the situation in the main races would have been very different.
Find a 57 to 59 Chrysler product and look at the top of the windshield frame. It overhangs the windshield by probably an inch. This lip made no difference at stock speeds, but above 100 it really handicapped the Chrysler cars. Chrysler also did not sponsor a NASCAR effort, in 55 and 56 Chrysler 300s won everything with a million dollar sponsorship from Kiekhaufer's Mercury Outboards but they withdrew after 56. Pontiac and Olds were providing factory assistance by 57, as was Ford. There was a 57 Dodge D500 offered with the optional 354 hemi from the 56 Chrysler 300 that was as hot as any car available but didn't do well without sponsorship and had the aerodynamic problem.
The reason there are no Pontiacs, they out handled all the other makes with its wide track design.
***** They started extending the A-body chassis in '55, but didn't start calling it wide track till '59.
Pha Q Yes, The concept of wider track width started in '55. The "Wide Track" (as a "slogan".) started in '59 and used until the early 1970s. afterwards too much component sharing among the A and B bodies effectively killed of any differences between Pontiac and Chevrolet.
read ANY 57-61 car magazine. most were paid by GM but all had to admit Mopars were by far the best handling domestic cars. not a single road test that does not praise the superior mopar torsion bar suspension.
The '59 wide track Pontiacs were too wide for garage hoists. Ooops!.
Great video! It's a joy to look at the beauty of Chrysler's 1958 cars.
The Windsor kicked their asses!
This was obviously a Chrysler promoted side show. They should have put in a few other tests like which one had the most rattles etc.. Chrysler in 1958 would have won that too. easily lol
why i have the feeling thats was sponsored by chrysler ???
Haha, I want a Roadmaster with airbag suspension...
This shows deceptive advertising in favor of the Chrysler Corporation. Notice they didn't let you look ubder the hood of each car for starters. Some of the 50's Chrysler products came with factory speed equipment like a cross-ram 2 four barrell setup just for starters. If they would have included the 58 Pontiac it would have blown the Mopar stuff away! Notice that the GM & Fard cars always seem to aim for the sandy side of the road going into the turn. What a bunch of crap!
The 1958 cars were tanks and did'nt sell as well as the 1957s. The re-styling for GMs '58 line-up was a big letdown after the great looking 1957s.
My understanding of this era of cars has been that Chrysler was always known for having superior engineering while GM and to a lesser extent Ford were known more for their styling departments as being superior. So these tests do not seem that far from what might be the truth actually. My belief is that they all were innovators in their own way, but Chrysler was always pushing the superior drive-train and handling envelope in hopes of winning over customers while GM and Ford pursued those buyers who are sold more on a car that will stop you dead in your tracks based on the way it looks. And this has always been pretty obvious to me just by looking a GM's output under Harley Earl in the '50s and even after he left in the '60s. Those cars are incredible looking, each and every division of GM. And Ford did have nice looking cars, but especially the Mercury division. Lastly you have Chrysler with their bullet proof slant 6 225 engine along with the incredibly reliable V8 318 engine, all topped off with the 413 Wedge engine. Pair any of these with an ultra reliable and smooth TorqueFlite transmission and torsion bar suspension which really does make a huge difference, just as shown in this video. The only personal experience I can add is comparing a '62 Cadillac and a '68 Dodge Dart, both of which I have owned and drove many many miles. I know they are very different in size and type of car, but they are equally different in their styling and engineering. My Caddy was like driving a big bobbing in the ocean boat, that if I had tried to handle any of the tests they tried in this video, I have no doubt my Caddy would have performed similarly. I loved that car, it was fun as hell to drive and got tons of attention because it looked amazing! But it nickled and dimed me to death because of all the upkeep. It's engineering came nowhere close to any Chrysler I am familiar with. And then there was my tough as nails Dodge Dart. It was more like driving a small nimble go cart, even though by today's standards it was a Big car. It sat 6 incredibly comfortably and 8 people in it was perfectly doable. And with that many people in the Dart, it would've handled like a champ on these tests. I cannot speak for Ford as I have never owned a Ford. Anyway, my feeling is that all those writing that this is rigged are those die hard Ford or rah rah GM types who never will give others a fair shake just because they gotta have a favorite for no other reason than they gotta have a favorite. And therefore Chrysler rigged this. Uh ... I'm not too sure about that. At least not from my experience.
Those GM and Ford products also out weighed the Chrysler cars. That makes it harder to stop and move around cones. I will take any of those 58 GM cars over the Forward Look crowd. We're swzybats applied to the GM Zand Ford products? Just asking.Steve Spatola
ha ha at 9:19 he says corners as flat as a bookeepers chest lol
The narrators voice is persuasive and oddly reminiscent of mine.
IMO the Chrysler’s never had the ride of Cadillac or Lincoln. Just be careful when driving. I mean who waits that long before hitting the break when there’s a tractor in the middle of the road
And the only homosexual in the video was the guy driving the Ford - oh well some things nver change. HOLDEN!
I looked, looked again, and it does seem the tests were leaned in favor of the Chrysler products, as would any company do with their product. But this is just my subjective opinion. Objectively, Chrysler went into the ring with more 'fit' cars. Again, being subjective, I have had the priveledge of driving all sorts of old cars from the period here. The Chrysler products from that time were by far the most roadable, and agile of the bunch. They felt lighter, more 'tinny'...