Was the 1951 Ford the end of the sensibly-sized ‘standard’ American car?

Reasonable people can debate when the Big Three automakers stopped building sensibly-sized cars during the postwar period.

For example, one might point to the 1956 Ford because it was only slightly larger than its postwar predecessors but meaningfully smaller than the “lower, longer, wider!” 1957 models.

But since I have photographs of a 1951 convertible, let’s talk about this car.

For 1951 the Ford was 196.4 inches long, 72.9 inches wide and had a 114-inch wheelbase.

The top-end Custom convertible with a V8 engine weighed 3,258 pounds, which was around 300 pounds more than a strippo business coupe with a six.

Those specifications are pretty close to smaller mid-60s intermediates such as the first-generation, downsized Ford Fairlane. Or a recent-year Toyota Camry.

The “standard” Ford would mushroom in size between 1951 and 1960. In the latter year, a Galaxie convertible was 17 inches longer and 8.6-inches wider. That added 583 pounds to the car’s weight.

Indeed, the 1960 Ford became so wide — 81.5 inches — that it violated car-width laws in many states (Howley, 1993). Ford got back into compliance the following year by trimming the width by 1.6 inches.

For almost two decades the “full-sized” Detroit car would stick to around 80 inches in width but would continue to grow in length and weight.

Of course, in the 1970s some of those increases could be blamed on government regulations. Even so, that’s hardly the whole story. As a case in point, the American big car was getting more obese before federal bumper regulations began to be phased in for the 1973 model year

Also see “‘Lower! Longer! Wider!’ fixation of US automakers left opening for imports”

One could also argue that American cars grew bigger outside because consumers demanded more spacious accommodations. However, the roominess of a standard Ford changed less than you might think. In 1970 rear hip room was 62.5 inches — only 2.2 inches more than in 1951. Measure that out on your finger — that’s not a whole lot of extra room.

To make matters worse, the extra width was less useful because the rear seat was lower to the ground, so the transmission tunnel intruded more in leg room.

If Detroit assumed that all the public wanted was roomier cars, exterior dimensions wouldn’t have needed to grow nearly as much. A 1951 Ford would have been a relatively trim 75 inches wide if it had the same hip room as a 1970 model.

The photo below of a 1963 Mercury illustrates in a particularly stark way why American big cars ended up being around 80 inches wide. The emphasis was on looking bigger.

This points to a thought experiment: What if Ford had decided in the postwar era to increase the size of its standard models only slightly more than in 1951 — and only to boost roominess?

Furthermore, what if General Motors and Chrysler had followed Ford’s approach? In other words, what if the postwar arms race to make their cars bigger and bigger had never happened?

Would postwar American car designers have rebelled against making cars lower but keeping them roughly the same exterior size? Or did the push for bigger cars come primarily from the likes of top management and product planners?

NOTES:

Specifications are from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), Automobile Catalog (2023), Classic Car Database (2023), Consumer Reports (1956, 1963, 1970), Gunnell (2002), and Flammang and Kowalke, 1999). Graph with shipping weights are for entry-level four-door sedan models with six-cylinder engines (unless a V8 was standard).

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.
• Automobile Catalog; 2023. “Full detailed specifications listing and photo gallery.” Accessed April 24.
• Classic Car Database; 2023. “Search for Specifications.” Accessed April 24.
• Consumer Reports; 1956. “Basic body dimensions of the 1956 four-door sedans.” April issue: pp. 178-179.
• ——; 1963. “Basic body dimensions.” April issue: pp. 164-165.
• ——; 1970. “Basic body dimensions.” April issue pp. 221-223.
• Flammang, James M. and Ron Kowalke; 1999. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1976-1999. Third Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
• Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
• Howley, Tim; 1993. “1960-61 Ford ‘Finest New Fords of a Lifetime.'” Collectible Automobile. February issue: pp. 43-55.

ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:

• oldcaradvertising.com: Ford (1951)
• oldcarbrochures.org: Ford (1960)