Comparison of 1958 Cars Part 1

[FURY1958]

I don't care which is best or which is worse. ALL they are fabulous.

[47485ksc]

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!

[senorkaboom]

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.

[emptynester7985]

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.

[somewhatlongdong]

Clearly, this is a propoganda tape, and it fits the era. We're all more intelligent now, and we can spot BS like this easily. Though I do wonder today, if a lot of what we are shown on television isn't just a more sophisticated form of propoganda. I'm not speaking in terms of cars, but political discourse. There's a lot of BS thrown around today, but a lot of people take it as biblical truth. Always be skeptical.

[rever65]

@Mr.Sloika And speaking of efficiency, my '65 still gets 300 miles between fill ups on an un-rebuilt engine/tranny, with over 140,000 on the clock. Not bad for a 2 ton "tank". You can't deny the stout reliability of the Chevy small block, a good reason why they are so popular. I've had many debates with those who believe that anything new excels, but once they try my car, they end up admitting defeat. I would sooner cruise around in something made by a human being rather than by a robot.

[rever65]

@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.

[MIKEPREAMP]

Good thing that they didn't do an "accelerated rust-out test". The '57 and '58 Mopars looked like were made of Swiss cheese when driven for 3 years in the rustbelt.

[Turkeydoodlers]

Geesh you think this movie is trying to sell Chrysler brand lol?

[luridplanet]

Did McCahill throw his weight around with the auto industry? Nawwww

[ramblergarage]

Where's the 58 Rambler Ambassador with unit body construction and 327 V8 solid rattle free car with plenty of power and good on gas.

[Studmasterify]

What no airbags?

[swasey1952]

Strange no 58 Pontiacs in video? 58 Pontiacs were kick ass cars for the day, suspension was probably same as Olds and Buick, but engines were much snappier. Do the research, 57 and 58 Pontiacs were eating up a lot of racing, even McCahill liked them and owned them, along with his Imperials.

[4freespeech]

I subscribed to Popular Mechanics for years. They had to retire

"Uncle Tom" McCahill early because when they dropped the horsepower

way down in the early 70's he started making cracks like "This car

wouldn't pull Grandma off the john!"

That's true if you've never driven a pre- 1972 American car, and especially

a model from the 1950s and early 60s you don't know what a REAL CAR is.

[MrSloika]

@4freespeech Sorry, no. I've driven a lot of old cars, and the average new car spanks these old tanks in every way except style. New cars are more efficient, reliable, handle better, accelerate better, stop better, rust less and are a MAGNITUDE SAFER, than these old sleds. Consumer reports recently compared a 2011 V6 Mustang against a 1969 Boss Mustang (one of the hottest cars from the 60's) and the new V6 had it all over the old Boss. It's called progress.

[merion1950]

Interestingly enough, Tom McCahill, the narrator, did another film endorsing the 1958 Edsel. I suspect that's why Edsel is conveniently absent from this "comparison test" lol.

[102Help]

im Chrysler all the way

[Gapandgold]

thats my baby... i love chrysler please dont hate....

[gqjohnny]

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..

[gosmokesome]

1950's top gear?

[FURY1958]

@gosmokesome More or less.

[BEEGER1]

Oh god...I am so ripping this video and MST3K-ing it...

[TL250Rider]

Hemi and beloved Slant 6 The gest Mopar Engines ever.

[DeadCanDanceR]

Great video! It's a joy to look at the beauty of Chrysler's 1958 cars.

[cadrolls1]

G.M. and Ford products offered a better ride when driven as they should have been. Chrysler was better at speeds above 80 M.P.H. Very few people drove that fast back then. Chrysler's interiors were far cheaper than either G.M. and Ford. They also had a bad color match in their interiors. The white interior in the Chryslers were often three different shades. It was like that in ALL of their cars.

[02chevyguy]

@cadrolls1 Chrysler was also notorious for rust problems too.

[cadrolls1]

@02chevyguy They were noisy too.

[Bobbygn]

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

[cadrolls1]

@Bobbygn How about that comment that the Chrysler took the corner flatter than a book- keeper's chest? That comment would have made the national news today. LOL

[torontostablaguy]

lol  definitely a propoganda film.... but i dont care!

[MajorKoenig2]

Lol, SO biased against GM

[Shnikey5150]

chrysler sucks

[smoorehouse1]

Great Video the proof is right there for all to see Chrysler was King and if it was not for the cars after after 1975 they still would be

[paperbacklou]

I took GIWonder test once. There was a car tailgating me. There were 4 in front. I went to pass them in 1 move to lose tailgater. There was a truck coming other way, & string of cars behind. I made the move, just barely made it in time; phew gave everyone a scare. I resumed normal speed. Turned out car tailgating me was local sherif, older guy who figured he'd gauge my speed. He radioed ahead for state troopers to set up a stop. Had no idea. They stopped me; he pulled up ranting. Got $15 ticket.

[Rare92Mustang]

This is SOO BIased

[327caprice]

at 1:07 he said Gee I wonder if im gonna make it......another carton of cigarettes and two more cheeseburgers would make it a NO!

[02chevyguy]

Why do those two guys look like thugs for Chrysler? That larger man's voice gets kinda irritating after a bit. And DON'T EVEN get me started on the music in the background! :)

[rickypix]

It's amazing that McCahill would compromise his Mechanics Illustrated critic's bona fides to shill for Chrysler.... I used to read his reviews all the time

[Mpala67]

I like all brands of old cars, and I'd love to have any of the cars featured here.

But having owned & driven a variety of late 50s and early to late 60s cars, I can attest that Mopars really did have plenty of power & torque, and considerably better handling than GM's & Fords, especially at high speeds.

[85daytonaz]

mopar or nocar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[1964corvan]

apparently nocar as mopars don't gofar!!!

[lasuvidaboy]

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,

[osyris1027]

ha ha at 9:19 he says corners as flat as a bookeepers chest lol

[proscriptus]

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?

[chess1458]

The Buick Layed A Patch When It Took Off

[cadrolls1]

It's obvious that they "fixed" the results. It is also obvious that the Cadillac's shocks were tampered with. Look at the continual bounce after stopping. They did not do that with new shocks. 2 bounces, no more. Only with no shocks or tampered- with shocks would they bounce the way it did in this film. Shame on Chrysler.

[lasuvidaboy]

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.

[cheddyrod]

There was a recession in 1958.

[FourSixTireFrier]

they don't make cars like they used to i want a 1957 Ford Fairlane 500 with a 312 V8 and auto trans

[northcountry76]

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.

[swasey1952]

@northcountry76 - I had a friend who use to drive old Chrysler products, he use to say if you took a piss beside it on the road, it would conk out! Their ignition systems were pieces of shit for years. Distributors were total junk.

[crazybionicles]

boring! why i otta! uh oh! nap attac.....ZZZZZZZZZ

[4pointedstar]

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.

[dicarlo57]

A 58 Chevy with a 348 tri-power would have been an interesting comparison. In northeast Ohio the rust problems were common to break the spring shakles through the trunk floor. Id seen more than a few drivers dirty themselves in responce to the Chryslers violent acceleration. There allways seemed to be a faster Chevrolet...

[coldplays179]

what about packard?.... last year was 58 I think

they talked wierd back then, were they on drugs back then? maybe it was radiation?

[4pointedstar]

At this point Packard was Studebaker's red-headed stepchild. A mere ghost of the once mighty Pacards that came before.

[chip5959]

Notice on the tranny drag test that the Ford & GM cars all got the inside lane?

It's a hoot to watch these old commercials with the crude and heavily biased "tests".

The MoPars were good handlers, for the time, but build quality was so poor that it haunts Chrysler to this day.

[MrStarzky]

they forgot

"Sponsored by Chrysler Corporation...

[AzamatBagotov]

Chrysler didnt use an alternator, transistor ignition or transistor radio in the 50's, I know cuz I own a 59 Dodge.... other than that all those old cars are great!! I would buy them all!! Very impressive for the Chryslers though!

[coldplays179]

the tube radios that take like 5 mins to warm up? the 50s sucked.... only good old cars I would want to own are the late 60s-pre1980

big engine, nice comfortable seats, 8-tracks fm steros, a/c

[4pointedstar]

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.

[somewhatlongdong]

while those are valid points, the one consistency with Chrysler vehicles is chronically poor reliability. It's what's going to likely end the company this year.

[4pointedstar]

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.

[somewhatlongdong]

having worked for Chrysler, Ford and Nissan in their respective service departments, I have personal experience with this. All of Chrysler's vehicles rate at the bottom or near the bottom of overall satisfaction, reliability, and performace, according to Consumer Reports. They are underdeveloped when released, and do not stand up over the first few years. I would be curious to know where your "polling data," comes from, since it would contradict real world findings.

[4pointedstar]

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

[limestoneroad]

It is simply not true to claim that Chrysler vehichles have been consistent in having poor reliability. When I was a kid we had a 69 dodge dart with a slant six that suffered through all manner of abuse and just kept going. If American manufacturers had continued to build cars of that quality the japanese wouldn't have any where near the percent of the US market they do today.

[somewhatlongdong]

maybe your experience 40 years ago was different, but today, Chrysler vehicles are the least reliable and the poorest performing in their respective classes. that's just the way it is.

[LightAge2007]

ive heard those cars were modified from WW2 tanks, ive seen those thing plow right through modern cars

[bagelboi66]

"now the Imperial, glued to the road and corners as flat as a bookkeepers chest." What the hell does that even mean? That bookkeepers are flat-chested? So what, how is that suspiciously sexist quip germane to commentary on the car's performance? Even if the Chrysler cornered better, it's still as ugly as a plate full of sin. This vid is so biased it's good for a giggle and a grin but even 50 years ago in a more trusting age, who in their right mind would take it seriously? And those hats! LOL!!

[aboonski]

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!

[dicarlo57]

Tell us more; what did you think of the 409 chevy?

[4pointedstar]

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.

[sergiotero]

GM is my choice!

[lifteddick]

good one..:=)

[honestrunescaper]

Well you can tell this wasn't made made Ford or GM!

[honestrunescaper]

How often do you see a tractor and a wagon on the road? For "real world" driving the GM cars are the best in every way.

[buggoff]

Good God those cars are huge!

[caching60098]

Chrysler was the Honda and Toyota of the 50's and 60's. They used leaf springs on the rear axle and torsion bars in the front-no coil springs. Alternators instead of generators. a real, functional 3 speed automatic trans. Push-button gear selection. In 1955, came out with a cruise control that worked like present day cruise controls. Transistor ignition-standard. Transistor radios instead of tubes. Safety rim wheels with opposite turning lug nuts so the didn't spin off. The list goes on.

[noxscotchxtape]

@caching60098 jap shit suck i bet even back then the gas pedals stuck

[spikedpunk]

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'...

[spikedpunk]

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!

[hippieking]

I'm not too sure about the build quality of GM cars. I have been working on an old Cadillac and the build quality is very very bad. So is the choice of materials. The bolts and nuts are very poor and overall layout looks like something designed by a person that has never worked on cars. The Mopars were so much easier to work on.

[spikedpunk]

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!

[hippieking]

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!!

[spikedpunk]

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 .

[mynewpastime]

@hippieking Work on a modern car if you want to see poor quality. The average person that owns a $40000 vehicle of any make would shit if they could see how they are put together. We are riding around in dixie cups these days.

[MNBluestater]

Haha, I want a Roadmaster with airbag suspension...

[RMphy89]

At Extra Cost, Though

[williamg2552]

Chrysler and Imperial WASTED the compitition!!

[foucle]

Chrysler was doing some good chassis engineering then. Lincoln had it in the early '50s: Lincolns ran and won in the Carrera Panamericana.

[foucle]

No wonder those GM cars were such slugs. With all that chrome, they looked like they weighed 10 tons. It's a wonder the springs and tires could hold them up.

[Cruiseomatic]

"Corners as flat as a bookkeeper's chest"? LOL! Ya think they could say that today?

[GenericGene]

Great piece of motoring history - ahh Mopar

[aliosmanates]

it is full of lie...

[jbpr]

While this promotional video is obviously biased (I believe it was made by Chrysler's ad agency, Ross Roy), the harsh fact is that - while Ford and GM cars of the day gave a more 'pillowy' ride (which is what buyers wanted then...) - Torsion-Bar suspended Mopar vehicles of this era DID handle and hold the road markedly better than comparable GM and Ford models. It's well documented in both contemporary (and more recent) comparison tests.

[440mopar383]

yea Chryslers!

[JammitDeep]

Ouch! Talk about bias, this video and "tests" are over the top and clearly make Chrysler look bad in the end. GM and Ford were both going toward a super-smooth ride. Between their acceleration and better tranny drag, I'd suggest that some trickery with the axle ratio was done. Like koszut said, that Buick with the dynaflow in true low (and no tricks like full throttle to change stator pitch) should have just about sat there.

[koszut]

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.

[1947Desoto]

I don't fully believe this. The Chrysler cars couldn't have been the only cars to have passed those tests.

[Kolfritz]

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.

[weekenddriver]

Is that Tom McCahill doing the voiceover and more than a few on-camera appearances?

[rapilje]

Yes that is Tom McCahill.