(EXPANDED FROM 4/26/2023)
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. However, I would argue that the 1949-51 models were the better baseline.
Consider our featured 1951 Custom DeLuxe convertible. It was 196.4 inches long, 72.9 inches wide and had a 114-inch wheelbase. With a V8 engine the car weighed 3,268 pounds. This was around 300 pounds more than a strippo business coupe with a six.
Those specifications were pretty close to smaller mid-60s intermediates such as the first-generation, downsized Ford Fairlane. Or a recent-year Toyota Camry.
The Ford grew 17 inches in nine years
The “standard” Ford would mushroom in size between 1951 and 1960. In the latter year, a Galaxie convertible was 17.3 inches longer and 8.6-inches wider. That added 374 pounds to the car’s shipping weight, bringing the Galaxie Sunliner convertible to 3,741 pounds.
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. Length also was cut by 3.8 inches to 209.9 inches. That’s about where it stayed through 1964.
For 1965 the standard Ford would be somewhat downsized. Length and wheelbase were largely unchanged but width shrank to 77.3 inches That translated into a weight reduction that ranged from around 200 to 300 pounds, depending on the model and body style.
The standard Ford would gradually put the pounds back on over the next decade. By 1970 shipping weight would surpass 1965 models on many models. Size and weight would peak in 1975, when the base Custom 500 four-door pillared hardtop was 223.9 inches long, 79.5 inches wide, had a wheelbase of 121 inches and weighed 4,377 pounds. From then on the big Ford would be put on increasingly strict diets.
In 1979 the standard Ford was substantially downsized. Length was down to 209.1 inches, width to 77.5 inches, wheelbase to 114.4 inches and the weight of a base 1979 LTD four-door sedan feel to 3,463 pounds. This was similar to the footprint of 1959 models.
You can’t blame the bloat entirely on regulations
Of course, in the 1970s some of the size and weight increases were the result of new 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.
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 Ford’s extra interior width was less useful because the rear seat was lower to the ground, so the transmission tunnel intruded more in leg room. You can see that by comparing the seat height of the 1951 Ford in the above photo compared to the 1963 and 1969 Galaxie convertibles below.
What if cars only got bigger to improve roominess?
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’s beefy door illustrates in a particularly stark way why American big cars ended up being around 80 inches wide. The emphasis was on looking bigger on the outside.
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:
This article was originally posted on April 26, 2023 and expanded on Nov. 4, 2025. Specifications are from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), Automobile Catalog (2023), Classic Car Database (2023), Consumer Reports (1956, 1963, 1970), Gunnell (2002), Flammang and Kowalke (1999) and Flory (2004, 2009, 2013). 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.
- 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.
- 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)
A lovely car, and a good question. Here’s an Aussie perspective, Steve. I’d go with the ’56.
I’ve always regarded ’49-56 as substantially the same car. Yes there were body and chassis differences for sure, but the ’52-6 wasn’t all that much larger, the ‘package’ was pretty much the same. Here in Australia our local Ford guys kept the ’56 in production through ’58, dipping into the Canadian Meteor parts bin to differentiate the years. I’ve heard two explanations for this; production economics (big American sedans were relatively low sellers in postwar Australia) and the size growth (Aussies wouldn’t want a bigger car). Maybe there’s an element of truth in both.
What I do remember from my childhood is that those ’52-’56 (and the local ’57-8) ones seemed to be fairly common. When Australia got back in step with US production for ’59, the Ford looked huge, and from what I saw on the street was a much less common sight. Leaving aside issues like the state of the national economy (which I’m sure had an impact), US Fords were a much less common sight than they had been.
Export markets can have quite different driving conditions. The new big Fords for ’59 (and Chevs, and Pontiacs…*) projected too much of a ‘flash Harry’ image, as my Dad used to say, being so much larger than the cars we usually saw, were huge and unhandy to park in the cities, along with all that chrome and bright colours we love today. They drew too much attention, even in plain colours. Aussies back then were a fairly conservative folk. Nationally we weren’t as prosperous as Americans, and gas was taxed heavily here, supposedly to fund road improvements (yeah, right…). Oh, they were great country cruising cars for sure, to get you across those wide open spaces, but their size and thirst drove them upmarket and limited their sales potential. The ’59 gained the nickname ‘Tank Fairlane’, because it was as big as a….
So to me the US ’56 marked the last sensibly sized American Ford.
(*Mopar restyled the ’54 Plymouth as the Chrysler Royal and kept it going through ’62. Possibly for similar reasons.)
Ford Co got the sizes right – in that era . The Ford was the sensible youthful car – so it couldn’t be big and bloated. And Ford rejected a smaller car- and shuffled all the 3 cars lines around .
The Mercury was intended as the middle price suburban car of the better neighborhoods – bigger houses , needed a slightly bigger Lincoln like vehicle.
The Lincoln Sport sedan was the entry level luxury car on the shorter WB.
The stunning Lincoln Cosmopolitan was undisputedly ”the top”. Trendy streamlined style -so prestigious chrome trimmed door frames . Appeared similar to the entry level Rolls Royces of the last few years . Compare them
“Consider our featured 1951 Custom DeLuxe convertible. It was 196.4 inches long, 72.9 inches wide and had a 114-inch wheelbase. With a V8 engine the car weighed 3,268 pounds. This was around 300 pounds more than a strippo business coupe with a six.
Those specifications were pretty close to smaller mid-60s intermediates such as the first-generation, downsized Ford Fairlane. Or a recent-year Toyota Camry.”
I love reading comparisons of size among the older cars and current models.
Lori, see where the Camry comes in on rear legroom annd trunk space.
While I agree that the 1951 Ford was on a platform that set the footprint for what typical passenger car should be (in my opinion), the real superior American-made cars were the 1952-1956 Fords (and Mercury / Lincolns), which fixed the body structure flaws of the 1949-1951 Fords. I have high regard for the 1946-1956 Chrysler vehicles, but the 1954 Ford products were winners.
On my suggestion a local automobile author wrote and published an article about 20 years ago comparing the size of a ’62 Studebaker Lark with a contemporary Camry. The dimensions were within an inch.
And the dimensions of a ’64 “Lark” are within an inch-ish – the weigh almost right on – of the ’51 Ford cited by Lori above.
Just sayin’.
In one of his (many) Ate Up With Motor articles, Aaron Severson referred to an older car’s size to the size of an Accord. I forget which car he referenced, but it was a sweet spot that manufacturers return to over the decades.