(UPDATED FROM 10/7/2022)
Did the facelifted 1958 Fords have less-attractive styling than the all-new 1957 models? Jim and Cheryl Farrell (2022) suggested in a Dean’s Garage story that the answer is yes. Indeed, they concluded that “many suspect the company shot itself in the foot by trying too hard to make the ’58 Ford look like the ’58 Thunderbird.”
The Farrells (2022) blamed this supposedly unhappy turn of events on Ford Division head Jim Wright, whom they described as a beancounter rather than a car guy. He allegedly tried to “micromanage the design of Fords.” For example, he “insisted that the ’58 Ford take its design cues from the new, already designed ’58 Thunderbird.”
The Farrells’ story included three-dozen photographs of mockups that show a variety of attempts by designers to graft 1958 Thunderbird styling cues onto the 1957 family-car body. These images, and adjoining narrative, are worth taking a look at (go here). However, I would like to raise some questions about the Farrells’ basic argument.
What’s so bad about having a family resemblance?
Part of what gives me pause is that the Farrells seem to equate micromanagement with Wright’s insistence that the Thunderbird should have a resemblance to other Fords. What the co-authors didn’t mention was that Wright continued a policy used by a previous division head, Lewis Crusoe. Why was that okay under Crusoe — who the Farrells described as a car guy — but not okay when beancounter Wright maintained it?
The closest the Farrells (2022) got to answering this question was to state that Ford Division design head Joe Oros wanted to “continue the smooth, good looks of the ‘57 Ford Fairlane,” which he had helped design.
The Farrells seemed to view the styling of the 1957 models as so good that the family resemblance policy should have been waived. That decision strikes me as involving product-planning as much as styling. Thus, I don’t think it fair to say that Wright’s decision to maintain the policy served to micromanage the stylists.
The Farrells also failed to acknowledge that Wright did not act like the classic, penny-pinching finance guy. For one thing, the facelift was unprecedented in its scope for a second-year, post-war Ford design. That had to have been costly. In addition, 1958 was the first time that the family cars and Thunderbird did not use the same taillights. That gave the stylists more flexibility.
Switching to quad taillights had a certain logic
One unanswered question in the story was whether the 1958 Thunderbird had been designed with the intent to not resemble other Fords. Or was the attitude that those who subsequently designed the family cars should carry the entire burden of creating a resemblance? Either way, who made that decision?
I could see how a decision could have been made to better differentiate the 1958 Thunderbird. As a case in point, if the T-Bird had continued to share the same pie-plate taillights as the family cars, that could have arguably undercut the personal coupe’s “all-new” look.
It also makes some sense that quad taillights were experimented with in 1958. Quad headlights were the big thing, so mimicking them in the rear of the car offered some design consistency. In addition, at that point quads signaled a more modern and custom look.
That said, Ford later made a wise decision to go back to pie-plate taillights because they had become a design trademark. On the family cars they switched back in 1959 and on the Thunderbird in 1961.
If Wright had not been responsible for the decision to give the 1958 Thunderbird quad taillights, I don’t think he should be blamed for repeating them on Ford’s family cars. Calling for a family resemblance was a reasonable idea.
So who designed the 1958 Thunderbird?
I did a quick dive into the literature and have not gained much clarity. For example, Wikipedia’s (2022) entry for Oros states that he “did the primary design work on the new, four-seat Ford Thunderbird.” This narrative has been frequently repeated elsewhere (e.g., Conceptcarz, 2022; Netcarshow.com, 2022).
Hemmings writer Mark J. McCourt (2018) added more details by noting that “Chief Stylist Joe Oros penned a memorable theme with wide, dual pods at the rear, topped by the now-trademark Thunderbird fins.”
Some articles state that Oros’s proposal for the 1958 competed with one by Elwood Engel — which became the basis for the 1961 Lincoln Continental (e.g., Samsen, 2020; HandWiki, 2022). However, according to Thomas E. Bonsall (2004), Engel’s proposal wasn’t completed until August 1958, which suggests that it was actually for the 1961 Thunderbird. Richard Langworth’s narrative aligned with this scenario, with the added wrinkle that the winning T-Bird proposal was from “long-standing Bird designer Billy Boyer” (1987, p. 208).
Automotive News reporter Mark Rechtin (2003) was more vague. He stated that Oros was “brought on board to help style the T-Bird from 1955 through 1961.” In contrast, Aaron Severson (2008) wrote that the so-called “Square Bird” was initiated by a design team headed by Bill Boyer.
Also see ‘1959 Ford Thunderbird was a gimmicky but hugely important car’
So who is right? I couldn’t say without more research. However, if Oros did play a major role in designing the 1958 Thunderbird, why weren’t family-resemblance issues worked out before the car was finalized?
The 1957 Fords were not as great as presented
The Farrells appeared to take it as a given that the styling of the 1957 Ford family cars was better than the 1958 models. While car design is subjective, I would like to add some depth and balance to the conversation.
The 1957 Fords were among the less ridiculous designs of the late-50s, but they did suffer from gimmickry that didn’t age well. For example, the Fairlane 500’s rear-quarter chrome trim and two-tone paint exaggerated the height of the tail fins. In contrast, the 1958 models had more understated fins.
In addition, the relatively clean fascia of the 1957 models was undercut by single headlights that did not fit within their fender canopies. This gave them a tacked-on quality. Switching to quad headlights in 1958 solved that problem.
And while one could argue that the 1958 Ford’s fascia was bulkier, it no longer had a bucktoothed look, where a massive bumper extended well past the grille’s base. The 1958’s bumper was arguably better integrated and had a more innovative shape — particularly for a low-priced brand.
The Farrells appeared to particularly like the 1957 Ford’s pie-plate taillights. That’s understandable, but one could argue that the 1958 treatment was more advanced. The horizontal pods with half of the taillights integrated into the trunk lid anticipated the more sculpted rear ends of the 1960s. In addition, the 1957 Fairlane’s overly massive rear bumper was toned down.
My point here isn’t to convince anyone that the 1958 Ford looked outstanding. I am merely suggesting that the design offered some useful evolutionary improvements that deserve acknowledgement.
To what degree did styling impact 1958 Ford sales?
The Farrells (2022) stated that “most car buyers felt the ’58 Ford was not as attractive as the ’57.” However, they didn’t say how they know this except to point to lower sales in 1958.
It’s true that Ford’s family-car line (excluding the Thunderbird) saw the largest production decline of the low-priced brands in 1958 — 42.6 percent versus 41.2 percent for Plymouth and 24.4 percent for Chevrolet.
If fresh styling was such a big deal, shouldn’t Ford’s facelift have better protected it against Chevrolet’s new design than Plymouth’s fairly minor changes? In addition, shouldn’t Plymouth’s sales in 1958 have suffered more than Ford’s because its 1957 models had a substantially worse frequency-of-repair record due to their rushed development (Consumer Reports, 1963; Grist, 2007)?
And while the Rambler’s soaring sales may have thrown off the traditional market-share margins between the Big Three brands, shouldn’t the smaller and more conservative design of Ford’s lower-level Custom and Custom 300 models have been a stronger competitor to AMC’s compact than the super-sized offerings from Plymouth and Chevrolet?
Ford’s two lower-level series did drop only 38 percent compared to 44 percent for Plymouth’s and 55 percent for Chevrolet’s comparable models. However, Chevy’s high-end Bel Air series (including the Impala) decreased only 12 percent whereas Ford’s Fairlane and Fairlane 500 fell 46 percent; Plymouth’s Belvedere and Fury were down 57 percent. This suggests that the sales of top-of-line models were more dependent on the freshness of their styling.
The above line graph offers an additional cut of the data. In 1958 Ford’s production fell the most with its lowest- and highest-priced series. That said, the Custom 300 began to rival the Fairlane 500 in output. The onset of a recession presumably led to a greater portion of Ford buyers seeking a practical car rather than a glitzy one. Alas, Ford was emphasizing the latter.
Was the problem with the theory or the execution?
The murkiness of production data suggest that one can raise reasonable questions about whether the 1958 Ford’s facelift was a key factor in its weaker sales. Nevertheless, for the sake of discussion let’s blame it all on the styling.
The Farrells did not acknowledge that the core problem may not have been with the theory behind the facelift, which was to maintain a resemblance between the family cars and Thunderbird. After all, giving one’s entire product line a cohesive look is hardly a controversial idea in the auto industry.
What if the problem was actually with the design’s execution? For example, could Oros have come up with quad taillights that were better adapted to the taller, boxier body of the family cars?
I am not raising these questions to defend Jim Wright. Nor am I a fanboy of the 1958 Ford, which I find to be a middling design. My goal here is to show how automotive history can be heavily colored by those who happen to get the ear — and the sympathy — of a writer (go here for further discussion).
I wouldn’t criticize the Farrells for presenting a point of view. Done well, that can advance automotive history. The problem is that they could have constructed a tighter argument and provided more evidence to back it up.
NOTES:
This story was originally posted on Oct. 7, 2022 and updated on Aug. 21, 2025. Production and market share were calculated from base data from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), Gunnell (2002) and Wikipedia (2013).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 2002. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, Ill.
- Bonsall, Thomas E. 2004. The Lincoln Story: The Postwar Years. Stanford General Books, Stanford, CA.
- Conceptcarz; 2022. “The 1958 Ford Thunderbird.” Accessed Oct. 6.
- Consumer Reports; 1963. “The six-year record.” April issue: pp. 170-171 (no link available).
- Farrell, Jim and Cheryl; 2022. “The 1958 Ford—An Indirect Casualty Of The Edsel.” Dean’s Garage. Posted Sept. 4.
- Grist, Peter; 2007. Virgil Exner, Visioneer. Veloce Publishing, Dorchester, England.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- HandWiki; 2022. “Engineering:Ford Thunderbird (second generation).” Page accessed Oct. 6.
- Langworth, Richard M.; 1987. The Complete History of Ford Motor Company. Beekman House, NY.
- McCourt, Mark J.; 2018. “Fabulous Thunderbirds.” Hemmings. Posted Sept. 22.
- Netcarshow.com; 2022. “Ford Thunderbird (1958).” Accessed Oct. 6.
- Rechtin, Mark; 2003. “The T-Bird: No one’s sure, but whoever did it, did it right.” AutoWeek. Posted June 16.
- Samsen, John; 2020. “Elwood Engel, Chrysler’s Chief Stylist.” Allpar.com. Posted Nov. 16.
- Severson, Aaron; 2008. “Gaudy but Glamorous: 1958–1966 Ford Thunderbird.” Ate Up With Motor. Posted July 17.
- Wikipedia; 2013. “U.S. Automobile Production Figures.” Accessed July 5 (page no longer online).
- ——; 2022. “Joe Oros.” Page last modified Aug. 16.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- autohistorypreservationsociety.org: Ford (1957, 1958); Ford Thunderbird (1958)
- oldcaradvertising.com: Ford Thunderbird (1958)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Chevrolet (1958)
It is refreshing to read that ’57 Ford was not as much a masterpiece as it is often cited to be. I always had a problem with its bug eyed headlights, and also am no fan of the body side trim of Fairlane 500 series. ’58 is not ideal either, of course – e.g. the taillights leave much to be desired, indeed. But definitely not as bad looking as some people may tell you.
Moving the tallights from where they used to be in ’57 to the rear panel and making them quads was, IMO, a genuine move towards a more modern look. It could be better executed if another layout was used, for example – something resembling the ’63 Mercury Comet; a very similar idea, but the elements are much better integrated. And that sculpting on the trunk lid just doesn’t work as good as on the T-Bird.
I agree with your take on the ’57 Ford not being such a masterpiece of styling. Mainly, it was a significant change from the previous 2 generations of rather conservative looking Fords. As for the 1958 Fairlane 500, I always regarded the side trim as overdone but no doubt it was intended to add glamour and emphasize the length of the car. The ’58 front end looks fine, a big improvement over the previous year, but also agree that the tail end needed refining.
There are some interesting follow on comments in the original article on Dean’s Garage. Take special note of the one by Dick Ruzzin, a senior designer from GM.
It should be understood that Ford has a history of being an internal political. George Walker as the VP of Styling at Ford has admitted in interviews his management technique was to appease the various senior management people rather than fight for the sanctity of design. So, one can reasonably extrapolate that Joe Oros could only go so far in his efforts to fight for retaining the cleaner attributes of the 1957 themes when his boss wasn’t going to back up that fight.
A particular problem of “brand identity” is that there is a tendency to graft elements onto a design for which it was not conceived for. The 1958 Ford suffers from this mistake by trying to incorporate the nose and taillight treatment from the Thunderbird with the vertical surface area of the full size car unable to give the slim horizontal proportions that make it work for the Thunderbird.
Whatever Ford did for 1958 was going to have a problem anyway. They were going to be behind in the aesthetic wars with the new line of Forward Look by Chrysler.
I always liked the 57 styling because it built well from the 55 and 56. That said, the front looked a bit goofy the way the headlights stuck out from the body and the grill tucked back under with very little or simple character. However, when the 58s were introduced, they didn’t look like a natural evolution of the 57s. The quads had a rushed look, like they had to fit them in because they could by law. It didn’t have the Ford look about them. They looked sad and dated, especially from the front fenders around to the grill. As far as the back and taillights, they worked OK, and somehow managed to capture the Ford look even though the lights weren’t round. Then when the 59s were released, they managed to get it perfect. Everything about the 59s worked great. They were very Ford. They were bold and beautiful at the same time. The front fender lines, the headlights and grill had a very elegant look that still looks great today. The tail and backup lights work great together, very bold, big
taillights, especially as compared to the 59 GM and Chrysler products and their severe fin designs that were way over the top. Whatever styling mistakes Ford made in 57 and 58, were corrected for 59. They led into the 60s very well. The 1960 Galaxies were a refined look that also had beautiful modern lines that stood on their own from the previous models from just 3 years earlier. In any event, the 59s were the best-looking of all. But that’s just me.
I know that various state laws had to be changed for 1958 for quad headlights to be legal. (I don’t know what Lincoln dealers did with the 1957 Quadralights.) But I also know that 7-1/2-inch single light pairs were legal in all 48-states.
I know that Robert McNamara’s favorite Ford was the boxy 1959 Ford Galaxie.
I love the 57, 58, and 59 Fords, and I hope the Farrells write a companion to Lincoln Design Heritage focused on the Fords from 1949 to 2000.
Interesting to note then Ford Australia, due to being a smaller market, keeped using the 1955-56 body for their 1957 and 1958 models Down Under since Aussie buyers mainly take the Zephyr/Consul and the Prefect until the arrival of the Falcon and Cortina.
http://oldcarbrochures.org/Australia/Ford/Ford/1957-Ford-Family-Brochure/index.html
http://oldcarbrochures.org/Australia/Ford/Ford/1958-Ford/index.html
In 1958, Ford received significant recognition for its automobile styling at the World’s Fair in Brussels, Belgium. The Ford Motor Company was awarded a Gold Medal by the Comité Français de l’Élégance for the styling of its 1958 model. This award highlighted Ford’s innovative design and aesthetic appeal during that era. Personally, I find the 1958 restyle hideous, but then, it may have been that Ford intended that Edsel set the corporate style template. The George Walker-era was apparently waning, and with it, the template for the 1955-1956-1957 Ford, the 1955 Ford “Mystere” concept, abandoned. I see the 1958 Ford Fairlane / Custom influenced by the Thunderbird, but less gracefully, and the rear-end as a variation of the Edsel with twin taillight pairs. I have read somewhere that the 1958 Ford sedan deck lids were stamped with its shape to increase structural rigidity over the 1957 deck lid.
One final thought about Ford’s styling designs in the last half of the 1950s: Ford’s styling mock-ups were in my opinion way more “out there” than the styling concepts of any domestic auto manufacturer, which may be why the details of the 1958 Ford and the Edsel missed the mark with the public. Again, this may be because George Walker was on his way out the door at Ford and the leadership to succeed Walker did not take charge the way Virgil Exner, Sr. and Bill Mitchell did respectively.
” the Fairlane 500’s rear-quarter chrome trim and two-tone paint exaggerated the height of the tail fins. In contrast, the 1958 models had much more understated fins.” – Ford’s fins were underdeveloped from the beginning of the tailfin era, the trim accenting the height in ’57 and paint dividing helping to contrast them against the overall body shape was what had to be done,not an exaggeration.
I think 1958 was a low point in styling for many brands. The Thunderbird is not alone in looking like a catfish from the front.
I’ve always liked the 58 Ford. There was a rusted shell of a 58 two door wagon in the woods behind my house that i spent a lot of time playing in as a car obsessed child. The rears a little busy for me but the front works.
Perhaps the success of the 1957 Ford with the pre-planning of the 1958-1960 Thunderbird created an atmosphere of corporate self-satisfaction. The 1959 Fords show a finished look both front and rear that the 1958 Fords did not.
I was a Ford rep in the later 1970’s and beyond. One of my most successful dealers in their market was Zeims Motors in Farminton NM. Old man Zeims was a pretty visionary dealer (still in business though he passed away), and he thought the ’58 Ford was the ugliest car he ever saw!
I think the 58 then and now sufferd from a cobbled together look almost as bad as Studebaker’s efforts to add quad headlights in 1958. Multiple pieces and seam lines in front and an overdone rear end looked like it was an update done quickly and cheaply, not a good look for a “big three” player on their volume model.
IMHO despite the major change of the 58 Thunderbird, Ford kept a lot of the little Bird themes intact. The bumper/ grill is an evolution, the mini tailfins evolved and while the taillights multiplied they kept the round theme of most Fords of the era.
Also apparently in 58 Ford won a huge bid from the stste of New York to replace ALL of their vehicles to take advantage of recession induced pricing. My late dear friend Cal Beauregard was the rep for the dealer who got the bid, tales he could tell of the volume run through a small Catskills NY dealer. Could this have blunted some of the sales numbers for Ford in 58?
BTW, Google Cal B, lots of history with Ford especially with Lee Iacocca.
In the 50s, 60s and 70s styling mattered. In fact, styling was king before wind tunnel testing dictated everything be a different version of the same metallic blob.
As such, brands strove to make their cars easily identifiable with certain features or design cues that would be integrated into every new model year’s offerings. Buick had portholes, Pontiac had the beak, Cadillac had the fins, Impala had the triple taillights. At the peak of their success, each of those brands was successfully incorporating those (and other) design elements into their offerings, regardless of the overall look of each new model. That continuity helped develop and maintain brand identity and loyalty.
The same was true of single round taillights for Ford. They had maintained that feature for half a dozen years, then abandoned it for 1958. What they came up with to take its place was more complex, but not necessarily better. On the front end, they were equally confused, wanting to tie the grill to Thunderbird, integrate quad headlights to keep up with the rest of the industry, but craft everything onto the existing 1957 Ford body shell. The result was a product that looked like it was designed by committee, because it was.
That was all corrected on the 1959 models. Round tail lights returned in all their flower pot glory. The front end was cleaned up and made the car look aggressive and important again. The family resemblance to Thunderbird was gone. In its place was a family resemblance to Mercury, a more expensive full sized car, rather than a smaller halo four-seater. The tie-in made sense. The result was Ford beating Chevy in sales again, just like in 1957.
Not learning their lesson, they abandoned round taillights again in 1960, went off the deep end in the design of the 1960 model lineup, and were beat badly in sales by Chevrolet. (I personally am a fan of the one-year-only 1960 design, and have one in my garage. But the buying public at the time did not share my enthusiasm.) Big round taillights and conservative Ford styling returned for 1961. They had to have been popular; everybody in Mayberry drove one, even Sheriff Taylor.
The lesson? Don’t mess with what works. Modify, update, modernize, and tweak. But there are certain design emblems that become universally recognizable as part of the DNA of your brand identity. These are what make the buying public seeing a new model for the very first time not have to guess at what it is. Ford broke that rule in 1958 and paid the price.
As a car obsessed kid in the 60s, I loved all of the late 50s Fords with my favorite being the 59. I’m kind of in the same place between the 57 and 58, today I would probably take a 58 over a 57 as it was the first year for the FE block. I never cared for the sound of the Y block. I still dream of having a 59 Ranchero.
Taking an uncritical look at Ford – I dont believe that Ford ever made a homely car. Even the late Models T’s were quite attractive cars. The 1957 was contreversial – we owned the station wagon version. Its looked good – even into the 1960’s. Look at oft derided Edsel – not an unattractive car by any means. The 1959 restyle with its thinner signature grille and wider lower body was as attractive as anybodies. And its well known that Pontiac shamelessly copied it – to GREAT success. A funny aside – in the movie “”ITs a mad mad etc World ” Jimmy Durante drives a low line black 57 Ford – enough said