Ranking the “best year” for American cars strikes me as clickbaity, but Adam Wade’s (2025) Rare Classic Cars & Automotive History vlog has gone there — and proposes 1965 as the winning year.
Before explaining his top choice, Wade argues that his top nominations were the years 1957 to 1971. He points to the former year because that was when Chrysler introduced its second round of the Forward Look cars. Wade (2025) lauded them for “beautiful thin roofs” and “gorgeous designs that really set the industry on pace to develop many exciting-looking vehicles.”
Wade pointed to 1971 as the last of Detroit’s golden years because it had many new designs but saw a move away from high-compression engines. The next year, 1972, was mainly a carry-over year and 1973 was the beginning of bumper standards. So after 1971 “it never really got better.”
For example, Wade (2025) complained that during the second-half of the 1970s horsepower went down and “you’ve also lost the big-block engines” — which he argued was the “most sublime element of a classic American car.” So within that context, Wade proposes 1965 as his top year.
Were 1957-71 Detroit’s golden years?
I feel conflicted by Wade’s schema. On the one hand, I was born in the second half of the 1950s, so his proposed golden years has some appeal to my inner 10 year old. That said, I was never a big fan of big-block, land barges that were neither very fun to drive nor safe. And as someone who grew up in southern California during its smoggiest period, I think that cleaning up the air was needed. In addition, taking the lead out of gasoline strikes me as a sensible public-health step.
So how I size up Detroit’s golden years partly depends on whether I am viewing them through the eyes of a responsible adult or a kid who just wants to have fun. The adult side of me is drawn to early-postwar cars — somewhere around 1948 to 1954. That represented the peak of design experimentation before the independents collapsed and the Big Three’s more limited orthodoxy took hold.
Also see ‘What are the top-10 coolest American car interiors from 1955-70?’
Meanwhile, Wade airily dismisses the 1980s, but I think that it showcased some important advances in aerodynamics and packaging while also seeing a return of “organic” designs — which I prefer to the more angular forms that dominated the landscape from around 1964 onward. For example, I find the 1983 Ford Thunderbird and the 1986 Taurus to be historically important and visually appealing.
I can feel some nostalgic pangs when looking at the 1965 models, but if the whole point of owning a car is to actually drive it, I will take a 1983 T-Bird or a 1953 Willys Aero over Wade’s beloved 1965 Pontiac. What about you?
NOTES:
Product specifications were from auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), Flory (2004, 2009, 2013) and Gunnell (2002).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, Ill.
- Flory, J. “Kelly” Jr.; 2004. American Cars, 1960-1972. McFarland & Co., Inc.
- ——; 2009. American Cars, 1946-1959: Every Model, Year by Year. McFarland & Co.
- ——; 2013. American Cars, 1973-1980. McFarland & Co., Inc.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Wade, Adam; 2025. “The Best Year for American Cars is…1965! Do You Agree?” Rare Classic Cars & Automotive History. Posted Aug. 31.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcaradvertising.com: Pontiac (1965)
I agree with Adam that from a pure style and interior materials standpoint 1965 was the (domestic industry) peak of sophistication.
I’m not using criteria related to relative interior spaciousness vs exterior dimensions , efficiency, assembly quality, value, or anything relating to the specifics of human factors.
I like the cars that Adam does, but had I been car buying age in those years, a 1960 to 1963 or 1966 to 1970 Falcon or 1967 to 1976 Valiant/Dart would have been more my speed.
i swear you used that Pontiac ad before. Anyway, good points can be made all around. I like your thoughts on the immediate postwar. The two box fastback style was continued and found unappealing, automatic transmissions were finally ready, station wagons were finally dragged out of the 19th century, and OHV engines and 12 volt electrics and tubeless tires were becoming the norm. By the 54 model year most cars could cruise all day in comfort and relative safety. These cars could operate well on today’s roads and expressways. You could say everything since has been refinement.
If you click on this link you can see that Pontiac ad again for old-time’s sake. When I am busy I don’t always have time to find new content.
The question is whether we’re supposed to answer this question as car collectors or as people buying a new vehicle during that particular year.
From the standpoint of a classic car enthusiast, the 1957 model year is a good one. The designs from the Big Three, along with the Rambler and the Studebaker Hawks, were quite striking. But those sleek 1957 Mopars had serious build quality, rust resistance and reliability issues. The 1957 Fords and Mercurys were almost as bad.
If I had bought a flashy new 1957 Plymouth Belvedere Sport Coupe in January 1957, and then had to deal with rust bubbles, interior water leaks and mechanical problems by March 1958 – and other Mopar owners I knew were dealing with the same issues – I would not be inclined to speak highly of any 1957 Chrysler Corporation vehicle.
I remember reading that, in the entire history of the Popular Mechanics “Owners Report” series, the 1957 Ford and Mercury were the two cars that had the highest percentage of owners give their new vehicle a “poor” rating.
The 1965 model year isn’t a bad choice. The only stinker from a styling standpoint is the Rambler Marlin.
One did not need to buy a vehicle with a big-block V-8 to enjoy decent performance in 1965. The domestic manufacturers’ drivetrains were rock solid by this time, and customers had a wide variety of choices – the Corvair, Corvette, Mustang, compacts, intermediates, full-size cars and personal luxury cars.
Air conditioning was improved in performance and reliability. It was also less expensive relative to the price of the car.
A Mustang, Falcon and Mopar A-Body with a six, or small V-8, are all handsome cars that are easy to park and drive, and aren’t gas-guzzlers. A Mopar B-Body and GM A-Body with a V-8 and automatic are handsome cars that are the right size.
While the 1980s brought more rational and functional designs after the excesses of the 1970s, reliability also declined. I love the Taurus and Sable, and they were sized and packaged well. They also drove well. But the 3.8 V-6 loved to munch head gaskets, and the automatic transmission could not handle the output of the 3.8 V-6. So customers were often faced with complete transmission failure and serious engine problems before 100,000 miles.
Even the downsized, rear-wheel-drive GM intermediates had transmission problems, and the 3.8 V-6 was prone to premature failure. The long-lived, economical and peppy 3.8 V-6 did not come about until the late 1980s. A friend had a 1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme with that engine. First the transmission failed. He had that repaired, and then the engine grenaded. All of this happened before 100,000 miles.
Then there is the Cadillac HT-4100, the front-wheel-drive Lincoln Continental, problems with the Chrysler Corporation turbos and the lousy build quality of the third-generation GM F-bodies.
As noted, the whole point of owning a car is to drive it, and people can’t drive vehicles that experience serious mechanical failures. The sad truth is that a mid-1960s American vehicle given good care was more likely to make it to 100,000 miles without serious issues than many 1980s vehicles. For the domestics, things got better in the 1990s, with a few exceptions (Cadillac Northstar V-8 and the Chrysler LH cars).
The thing is, if you drill down enough you can find problems with pretty much any car. So we tend to look past their downsides if a car appeals to us.
My goal with this story was to push back against the idea that cars are primarily art. They exist in order for us to go from Point A to Point B. One of the reasons why I think that Detroit lost its way in the postwar era is that executives increasingly assumed that people wanted rolling sculpture. So not only did cars become too big, but too much emphasis was placed on styling at the expense of other attributes, ranging from manufacturing quality to safety.
So while one can criticize specific aspects of the 1983 Thunderbird, I would suggest that it was the first well-balanced design in that nameplate’s entire history as a four seater. It had a reasonable size and weight, was admirably aerodynamic for its time, and arguably was the best handling T-Bird to date.
When I look at the 1965 American cars, the one that strikes me as best anticipating the future was the Avanti II. It was reasonably space efficient, aerodynamic and paid more attention to safety than was typical of the time. Did it have plenty of downsides, such as a crude suspension? Sure, but I think the Avanti II was still a useful counterpart to an industry that had gone astray in key ways.
That doesn’t mean a whole bunch of folks will stop putting the 1965 American cars up on a pedestal. Particularly when it comes to aesthetics, we like what we like. I’m just trying to approach the topic from a more historical perspective.
Uh – oh! Steve, please explain your “crude suspension” comment. More scheduled servicing was called for than many other cars, but that doesn’t make it crude. So – what do you mean?
Check out Road & Track’s test of the Avanti. Even Consumer Reports compared the Avanti’s handling unfavorably to the Riviera. The Avanti’s handling was a step up from the Lark but hardly world class.
I refrain from picking the BEST year, but agree that 1957-1971 was the second golden age for American automobiles. The first would be somewhere around 1930-1940, a little shorter than the 15 years of the 2nd golden age. Nearly all of the most coveted American classics fall within those two designations.
I prefer the era of 1960s GM cars that Adam prefers… with the beautiful paint color choices (and color keyed interiors), stacked headlights, thin A pillars, bumpers before they grew to battering ram size, and dashboards without too many plastic bits.
I don’t want to get into a big discussion about this any more than you likely do, but – a few defensive “car-buff prattle” comments by an enthusiast are in order, I feel.
Perhaps first you should define “crude”. If, as my Roget’s Thesaurus proffers, you mean “inferior, sketchy, coarse, primitive”, you’d be wrong. If you mean “unadorned, lacking refinement” as it also proffers, you’d have a leg to stand on.
No car with an inferior suspension can win Shell 4000 Rallies, race in the Mille Miglia and Pan Americana and at Sebring, or survive in production for over 30 years (from introduction in 1951 to the end of its use in the Avanti II in 1983). The configuration of it is virtually the same as used by Corvette to 1962.
GM could afford to reconfigure a whole new frame and suspension for their fibreglass sports car in 1963. Studebaker could not, but instead added bits and tweaks to try to make it more acceptable in that application. As you pointed out, heavier sway bars and radius rods were far from enough to make the Avanti suspension “world class”.
The unfortunate inference of your remark, I believe, is that all Studebaker suspension of the time was “crude”, and therefore inferior and to be avoided. But that would be wrong. Stude’s suspension was stout, well designed and reliable for the types of consumer cars they hoped to sell in profitable quantities – at least up to the very early ’60s.
Ok, perhaps its use in the Avanti was not refined enough for a relatively expensive sports/GT in the mid’60s amid new “big three” competition. And, if THAT is what you meant (but did not, unfortunately, explain), you are hereby exonerated – this time.
You of course know that you are often “on trial” when making generalised remarks in front of enthusiasts! I like you anyway.
The name of this website was chosen partly to emphasize that I offer an independent take on cars. If those takes offend anyone’s sensibilities, they have many other choices on the web. It’s as simple as that.
Now, it’s possible that there isn’t a big enough “market” for a website that doesn’t tell people what they want to hear. If that proves to be the case, that just means I will have more time to sit at the dock and drink beer rather than arguing about things that, in the grand scheme of things, don’t matter much.
Your “independent” takes don’t offend my sensibilities (anymore!). In fact, l am financially supporting your efforts to proffer them. My takes on your takes is all l’m commenting about. Too bad that your choice of words can be, on this occasion, be open to interpretation. l would have to have had a factual explanation. But…
l don’t have time to take my opinions to a bunch of websites. Besides, l like yours and l learn a lot when l have time to visit.
… would have liked to have….
There can only be two reasonable choices, 1957 and 1965. Which one you choose depends on what you drove to prom.
You, sir, made the comment of the day!
’65 is good.
’67 is better. GM F-bodies for sale, Mustang facelift successful? ’67 full-sized Pontiac a step backwards, but interesting? The best looking AMC Ambassadors? “The Machine”! The Cougar!
Don’t forget front wheel drive Eldorado! Make mine black with that black and white houndstooth interior.
Don’t forget, though, that in ’67 the first edition of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards was implemented. This new regulation forced the manufacturers to remove a lot of chrome from the interiors, to add soft padding which often didn’t look particularly pleasing due to the rudimentary plastic molding technology of the day, and also to pony up some additional money for the now-mandatory safety equipment, such as dual-circuit brakes – leaving them with less resources for other things. As the result, a lot of ’67s had a “cheapened-out” feel compared to ’65-’66 model years. Arguably, making the cars functionally better for the customers of the day – but less appealing to the classic car enthusiasts. From a particular point of view, that can be seen as the beginning of the end of the traditional American car industry…
Ford peaked in 65. The only losers were the godawful 65 Fairlane, and single circuit brakes.
To me, ’65 was primarily The Year when the classic American car as a phenomenon has taken its final form.
Ford & GM moved their big cars onto new platforms with perimeter frames – which, more or less, were used up until 1990s. MoPars were divided into A/B/C-bodies – which, in some form or another, soldiered on until the end of the classic era. True mid-size cars started to be offered by all of the Big Three members, thus forming the classic triad of compact, intermediate and full-size models. AMC got rid of the legacy of Romney’s tenure and took on GM envy – which led to nothing good. Studebaker was, for all intents and purposes, dead in US. Etc., etc.
And in ’67, the 1st edition of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards came about, spelling doom for the unregulated era of the American car industry. The beginning of the end, in some sense – a shadow of the things to come…
In G.M. world, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards hit in the 1966 model year. The G.M. B- and C-bodies were much safer cars by ridding themselves of the dangerous X-frame of 1957-1958, plus the cars handled better than the X-framed cars.
After 1953’s smaller gauge metal problems, Studebaker’s frames until the end were quite rigid. If it was good enou8gh for Aunt Bea, Lucius Beebe and Andy Granatelli, it is good enough for me.
1965 was the peak for the U.S. auto industry, in my opinion.
My father went shopping for a ‘64 Pontiac Parisienne (a Chevy Impala in a Pontiac suit) in September of that year as he loved its styling and wanted to get one before it was too late. The salesman walked him out of the showroom to a random corner in the service department to take the wraps off a newly arrived ‘65. He decided right there and then to forget the ‘64 and ordered a ‘65. I will always remember it fondly as the car on which I learned to drive.