[Dealer Film]1959 Dodge Vs Buick! Confidential... Angriest of the angry cars! Colorized
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 апр 2023
- The two angriest cars ever made...
Great film from Chrysler comparing the Dodge vs the Buick.
I am not sure about my new colorizing AI software...
Subscribe for more videos. 
Авто/Мото
![[Dealer Film] 1961 Ford Vs Chevy, Ford takes some good shots! Colorized](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sQ0lRgJaw8M/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Dealer Film] 1961 Ford Vs Chevy, Ford takes some good shots! Colorized](/img/tr.png)
People thought all cars looked alike in the late 50s!?!?!? 🤣😂. They should see what we’re stuck with now!
its gonna get worse :)
Yeah - I thought the same.
🚗🤣
Agreed!!
Every car available new any given year in the '50s looked similar, but the styles changed so fast the overall effect was of variety. I think the most real variety available at any one time was for most of the '00s, with the early '70s close behind.
@@nlpnt I think the 1960s offered the most diversity seen on the highways. The transition years in particular, between 1957 and 1962 were probably the most dramatic in terms of change in the history of the automobile. If you park a 1957 car next to the same car from 1962, the differences are stunning.
As somebody whose first car was a '59 Buick Electra four-door hardtop, I can say that I am deeply offended. I intend to write a strongly worded letter to the management of this joint. ✍️
You might want to keep in mind this was 64 years ago. The "perpetrators" are likely long dead.
Dodge, Dodge, Dodge, pay one bill and try and "DODGE" the rest! Dodge was nothing more then an over priced Plymouth! Buick always had a better ride then any Chrysler product, any twit knows that! Power, oh please! My 2013 Camry with a v6 would smoke the two of those old buckets of bolts off the line and down the road!
Oh please!!! A 2013 Toyota Camry!🤔🤨🧐 An absolutely "Pig Ugly piece of crap!!!🙄😝🤪 That's worth SFA these days unlike both of these late fifties classics that would reach top dollar now!🤗👍
But either of these "buckets of bolts" can tow a trailer. Your Camry can't. Engine doesn't develope enough torque, and it structurally isn't sturdy enough.
This funny stuff..
Never again will there be better looking works of art cars. 1955 to 1965 American cars are my passion in life. V8s, soft ride everything right. lots of grunt, huge thirst, great sound, put me in a box and send me back to 1959... I am Aussie born in 51..
Some people dont get the chrome and fins... whitewalls, hubcaps and the change the 50s brough to the automotive world...
Hey hey hey from Pittsburgh Pa down under Brothers I one hundred percent agreed 💯 Born in 1950 timing is everything.
Also born in '51, in Flint , Michigan, home of Buick and Chevrolet. Agree with you completely. Lived 1/2 mile from the Chevrolet plant. Went on private tours there in '56, 57, 58 and 59, as a student of my dad's, at General Motors Institute, worked in the office there. My best friend's dad worked for GM and had a '59 Buick convertible, baby blue, with matching top, that he traded in a '54 Buick convertible for, in the same color combo. He was able to get the '59 painted in the '54 color, through his connections! Two doors down, a kid just out of high school, bought a '58 Impala hardtop, with a union job at one of the local plants. G'day mate!
You left out ...........HORSE S**T QUALITY........
I would go all the way upto 1973 as the real sweet spot for me when it comes to Cars! .Semeintial favroite is a 1965 Chevrolet Impala SS hardtop or Convertible and I did have an Aunt and uncle that did have a1959 Dodge Coronet Lancer 2dr hardtop- Sharp looking car!!!!.
GM's '59s were famously a design rush job started in late 1956 when someone saw Mopar's Forward Look '57s waiting for shipment behind the Mound Road plant.
This is very true, for better or worse. I've seen pictures of the styling studies of GM's '59s with the dates on them. In February '57 they didn't look anything (yet) like what they would be, and it didn't take long. By May '57 (the month I was born) all of them were very close, and by August looked almost production ready. It's pretty shocking. They had to have been working 'round the clock, 7 days a week during those months. With Chevy, their cars even had 5 different windshields from the '57-'63 cars which came out when I was 5 in late '62.
Lol that was GM's version... "OH we just happened to see them over the fence"... they had spies. Ford was the worst. Remember there was no non disclosure agreements but if you jumped ship you would be black balled. But people could easily be bribed to give up designs and Exner was super paranoid, but GM still found out and then Ford of course... Ford had guys in trees 24*7. I have an article back from 58 where they all hired private dicks for espionage. I'm sure GM had to make up a safe convenient story like "oh we saw them here!"... They wouldn't want to admit they had spies inside each others designs depts.
I’m a mopar guy, and I love the crazy Exner years. They’re my favorite. I’d have both, no question. However, I’d take the ‘59-‘60 flattop Buick. It’s just more nuts. The ‘60 even has a reflected speedometer for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
Wow, here I thought I knew everything there was to know about late 50s American cars, but WOW! I've never seen that mirror dashboard before! Agree with your statement on the 59 Buick flattop too- I don't think any car before or since had better visibility!
I agree, this is an especially wild Buick - I would choose it over this 4 door Dodge, even though I usually prefer Mopar specification.
@@sterlinsilver OR, BETTER build quality!
@@saxongreen78 The styling of the '58, 59 Dodge looks like an abortion!
The 1960-61 refkected speedometer.....just because we can.
The 1959-60 GM flattops are known as "international design."
I love the 1959 dodge! I always thought the movie Christine should have used the ‘59 because it looked angry.
GM/buick was copying dodge?
Rear fins, copying dodge? 🤣
Had they not seen a '59 Cadillac-GM
back then.
The look of the '59 buick lesabre has held up much better over the decades.
Technically Chrysler started the fin wars in 57... GM had to play quick catch up
@@autochronicles8667 Chrysler's'The Foward Look' But don't forget Cadillac's fin starting back in '48.
@@unclebob7937 yeah, but those early Cadillac lumps were nothing like the shark fins that followed.
Back then at least they designed cars for innovation, improved driving experience, and to make them easier to live with without breaking the bank. Now it’s to meet regulations, engineered obsolescence and overcomplicated to bring you back to the dealer for service at inflated prices.
the safety features do add cost... they do save lives though... but a low end car isnt that much more ... a mid range car would prob run 20k... You can get a cheap car nowdays for 25-30
I always buy the base models never have issues. The basic stuff really is quite durable. Avoid turbos and automatic transmissions, and do the basic maintenance, you rarely need repairs.
But a cheap car in 59 was still a nice big car. Today it is a little squirrel cage.
Plastic galore.... because of Insurance companies too
So you must have enjoyed breathing the carbon monoxide and other cancer causing polutants from that FABULOUS era.
In 1959, Dan Mathews, (2150), drove a Coronet in Highway Patrol, (1955 to 1959).
Another interesting salesperson training video. In the 50s when styling was distinctively different among the various automakers , there is a lot to talk about, but actual judgments about styling are really very subjective. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. On the other hand technical details are often more objective.
Well Chrysler certainly launched the "Fin wars"... and the industry did follow... until 1961.. :)
@@mikes2460 What happeneb to Chrysler's most famous "innovation", torsion bar suspension?
@@TheOzthewiz actually torsion bars lived on in GM trucks until 2005? Now struts are everywhere because they are the standard technology... cheaper
The front of the Dodge reminds me of an angry teenager wearing braces/retainer.
🚗😂
Still a great video.
@jeffking4176 The Buick Looks Like An ANGRY Adult Ready To Bite Your Head Off. And ALL Of Those WAY TOO BIG TUBS Were Land Yachts, That Floated Down The Road Like One Too... But They Can't Compare With The Angry, Evil, Intimidating And Downright HIDEIOUS Looking Vehicles Being Sold Today. MY GOD. These Car Designers Today Must Have All Just Escaped Together From Hell...
The cars made today have what look like the snouts of fishes @@davemckolanis4683
L O V E the Dodge AND deSoto for 1959 - gorgeous cars!
I once owned a 1959 Buick Convertible. Dyna-flow Transmission, Electric Seats and Windows....In 1968 it was all of $900 and now you hardly see them.
Today that $900 would be $8.000.
Nothing but Datsuns and Toyotas nowadays, and they are ugly as can be.
What a beauty it must have been.
@@southerncross3638 he is talking "used"
One of my favorite Buick's for style but like the Chrysler cars for handling and brakes and better automatic trans. Never liked the 59-61 Dodges, messed up the cleaner style of the 57-58 Dodges which looks much better. Great channel.
59 is a great year. thanks
59 Was The Peak Year Of Those Long, Useless, Ridiculous, Rear Fender Fins. Designers Began Reducing Them After That If You Notice...
fins really did nothing unless your doing very high speeds :)
@@autochronicles8667 Not Rocket Science To Know That Kiddo...
But they LOOKED NICE.
GREAT FILM ! I actually loved both of these cars when they came out. Of course. I was only 14 ! I loved the Swept wing design that Chrysler came out with, but I also loved the new look GM came out with in '59, especially the Pontiac Bonneville , which was MOTOR TRENDS "Car of the year". There alot of great designs and styles back then. Today, most cars all look alike. Thanks for the video. It sure brought back a lot of great memories.
I prefer Buicks. Love the Dynaflow transmissions. The flight Pitch was a interesting transmission but had issues with people selecting grade retard when accelerating which blew the transmission up.
59 Dodge is virtually nonexistent... super super rare, you rarely see them... Chrysler never rust proofed inside the rockers... but they are both awesome 50s cars.
The 57s were the worst. They were made of dehydrated rust.
That was also the problem with Chevrolet's Turboglide as well. It was pretty mech a smaller version of the Flight Pitch Dynaflow.
I don't like the Exner "forward look" big tailfin style which ended up being copied by Buick and others although his 1955 Chrysler "300" was one of the better looking cars of all time
I understand that the "Forward Look" cars were also plagued by rattles,rain leaks and wind whistling problems
maybe not quite as bad (leaks and wind whistles) by 1960 especially for the B pillar 4 door sedans and in the high line Chryslers @@jamesbosworth4191
In Canada, The Base Dodge in 1959, was Called a Regent, and was a rebadged Plymouth.
A "Plodge".
Put a DODGE in your Garage..AND KEEP IT THERE!
Love this old stuff THANK YOU Auto Chronicles!!!!
"Those who copy Dodge are most handicapped." LMFAO 😂
copy but not too much :)
The one thing I am glad Buick DID NOT copy, Chrysler's "awesome" quality control LOL
They were afraid to use the Electra model, which would have blown away the competition.
I wouldn't be so sure.... They didn't seem to make videos on the "top of the line" performance versions(neither did GM/Ford). But the lighter 59 Dodge Custom Royal D-500(345 hp/400+ torque) would beat the 401 nailhead(324 hp)...
As someone who was Born in January 1959 I have NO opinion of these ANGRY DODGE CARS...
Buick gave a softer ride. Most people back then wanted a soft ride and felt that Chrysler's "torsion-Aire" ride was too firm. My mother had a '57 Dodge Coronet 500. It rode like a school bus. We were involved in a serious highway accident in it while on our way to Vermont from Connecticut to visit our grandparents who had a Summer home there. The windshield wipers stopped working during a heavy downpour at night while on I-91 North. We have never owned another Chrysler product. My mother is 92 now and drives a fully-loaded Cadillac XTS. The seats vibrate if she strays from her lane and she feels safe in it. I'm on my 9th Cadillac. One of which is a 1976 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham that rides better than any new car does.
the 500 had beefed up stiffer suspension... torsion bar, shocks so that was expected I guess.
Here in England I was 21 when my grandmother bought a Dodge Custom Royal. We felt like Royalty !
very cool and insanely rare over there.
This is a Great filmstrip! Great Post! Love the snarky announcer!
yeah i have a new one... the mercury... they accused ford of straight up lying :) Ill get it out today
I forgot to mention the spotlights on both the drivers and passengers door and they worked!
'Saddle Fins' - a bizarre accoutrement...these even ended up on our Chrysler Royal here in Aussie. (The saddle fins were later grafted upon the fins that had been grafted upon the P25 Plymouth/Dodge in 1957 to make the Royal. We missed out on the 1955-56 Mopars due to Chrysler amortising costs for local production of the 1953s. They became the Royal and remained in production until _1964!_ It was a clever facelift and eventually turned over a good profit, but I wish they had waited until 1955 to tool up - the 1953 is as homely as a wood stove.)
I have never liked the front end on the 59 Dodge. It's just looks weird like they didn't know what to do so they just stuck a bunch of stuff on there and hoped it worked. I never thought the 59 Buick was a very good looking car at all but the grill looks nicer to me. But when it comes to engines and transmissions, I'm taking the Mopar every time. I know from experience you can beat a torqueflight hard and it just comes back and says is that all you got buddy?
I got a different take seeing one in person... just mean, I always thought they were off... but in person your like "its going to kill me" :) 59 Buick is similar... I won't go into the Buicks transmission :)
Looks like an angry teenager wearing braces ‼️
🚗😱
@@autochronicles8667Both those cars win the award for angriest looking cars ever made.
@@autochronicles8667 There's a reason it was called "dyna-slush, LOL
I subscribed keep this stuff going...
Appreciate it... I love this stuff also.
Nothing says "Get off my lawn" like a '59 Dodge! LOL
In this presentation, Dodge introduced the "hater".
Lol cause GM never hated? And they make some good points... the OLE KNEE KNOCKERS...
@Swapmeet Hunter Chrysler was feeling the heat at this moment.
It was the beginning of a long 30-year fall for the third ranked manufacturer of North American automobiles.
They never really recovered.
@@-fuk57 I believe GM went broke also... and Chrysler has been fine for quite some time.... they have been gaining for quite some time.
@@swapmeethunter9937 I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you really don't like GM.
@@-fuk57 I own a lot of GM products :)
Love these old training films. Thanks for sharing!
It’s interesting that Dodge would choose to take aim at Buick since, from 55-61, Chrysler matched GM, division for division:
Plymouth - Chevrolet
Dodge - Pontiac
DeSoto - Oldsmobile
Chrysler - Buick
Imperial - Cadillac
But Dodge has never understood its position. It they weren’t targeting Buick, they were targeting Chevrolet. SMH
I’m decidedly not a Buick fan, but I will say, in this case, the Buick is the more beautiful, better designed and better built car for 1959. That Dodge was about the ugliest American car ever built … IMHO
Now had they paired the 1959 Chrysler with the Buick, I would choose the Chrysler for looks … but still not for build quality.
- A Ford Man!
Chrysler was a higher end brand than Buick, Chrysler and Imperial were both considered more Cadillac level. Nelson Rockefeller drove a 300C... Jay Leno called it the bankers hot rod and it was insanely expensive... Olds/Buick was Desoto level and Dodge was middle ground Pontiac/Buick so it wasn't really division for division.
Dodge was Chrysler's mid-range car. It was aimed at Buick.
@@maxr4448 Buick? The Dodge was aimed at Pontiac and the small Olds, as well as the cheaper Mercurys. The DeSoto was aimed at Buick.
Also for those who don't know, Plymouth (one of the "low priced 3") was SUPPOSED to be third in sales, was BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER by Pontiac (a "medium" priced car) and third in sales!
@@TheOzthewiz It was Motor Trends Car Of The Year!
The Dodge front end looks perky and meek, but the Buick takes 'angry' to the absolute max.
I happen to like the styling of the Dodge, but calling it simple in comparison to the Buick is crazy. The Buick is an exercise in good taste by comparison. Having said that, the 1960 Dodge styling was completely bonkers and I love it!
I'm surprised that Dodge and Buick were picked for comparison. Chrysler would have been more suitable against Buick and Pontiac to compare with Dodge.
While Desoto was higher than Dodge the BOP three were same market and they go after the Lesabre. Chrysler/Imperial were Caddy competitors. Chrysler WAS EXPENSIVE... and considered a very expensive vehicle.... the 300C ran up to 6k (60k in todays dollars) Remember Jay called them the "bankers hotrod"... Chryslers were well above BOP.
@Auto Chronicles While the 300 was expensive it was an anomaly in the line up. The New Yorker competed directly with the Electra and the Windsor and Saratoga were direct competitors to the lower buicks
@@autochronicles8667 Imperial was, but not so sure that applies to Chrysler brand.. I associate them with Buick or Oldsmobile, and maybe Lincoln.. DeSoto Also compares to Buick and Oldsmobile and maybe Pontiac.. (and Mercury-Edsel). Dodge more Pontiac-Oldsmobile, and maybe the less expensive Buicks.. (and top of the line Chevrolets) Plymouth slugged it out with Ford & Chevrolet.
Dodge, Buick, Chrysler, Pontiac, were ALL in the "medium priced" field...
Through most of the 1950s I think the New Yorker cost a good bit more than the "Windsor" or the "Saratoga" , Imperial I guess was above the New Yorker but shared the engine
also I think the Windsor continued a couple more years with an L head 6 engine after New Yorker had the Hemi ! @@autochronicles8667
The Dynaflow Transmission was pretty weak !
My dad owned a 1959 LeSabre convertible...bright red. We got compliments about that car frequently. The only drawback was the powertrain--364ci, 250hpV8, tied to that smooth, but sludge-like Dynaflow transmission. The Dodge had a better transmission, and was quicker 0-60.
1959 Electra 225 had a 401 ci engine plenty of get up and go
It's bigger engine developed more torque!
I had a 61, 4 barrel version of the same engine and trans. When I wanted to peel out, I would take off in Lo. Went like a bullet, but you had to let up off the gas while shifting to Drive, or else you woukd wear out the Hi clutch in the transmission.
A buddy had a 60 Buick hardtop that i just loved.
However, I'll take a Red Ram hemi anyday!
Having bought, restored, drove for awhile, then resold many 1950's and 1960's American cars in my younger years (I was born in 1953), I can tell you that the penny pinching of Chrysler on certain specs became apparent just a few years after their very thin steel future-rotted-out-junkers (from the roof gutters down to the wheel wells) hit the market. These 1950's grievance commercials and dealer training films are a testament to just how superior the General Motors cars were to the whining and not winning Chrysler cars. "Best choice is Dodge" really? Maybe for the Chrysler corporation's bottom line year to year, but NOT for those duped consumers by the millions!
Actually Chrysler used thicker steel on its bodies.... I guess you didn't see my other video :)
The 57's were rushed that's for sure and they rust protection was essrntially nonexistent, but honestly the FWL cars were just normal cars... Body sealing was an issue... other things were minor grumbles.
ruclips.net/video/CmBDDR1idW8/видео.html
@@autochronicles8667 Sorry to disagree with you, but none other than Jay Leno, one of the most informed auto collectors in the USA, has also commented on how the Chrysler products had issues with body rot because of how thin they stretched the steel at critical points where debris and road salt would accumulate that resulted in the steel rusting out prematurely. You must know, sir, that yours are not the only videos (or numerous other forms of commentary) about the automobile history of the USA and the wider world, right? Right! Accordingly, bye bye for now and forever, you neophyte with delusions of grandeur!
I find it interesting how important the styling was during the late 50's. There was plenty of sound engineering and design in the cars, but styling was emphasized.
I have a full Ford styling process document I might do a video on... how these corps came up with the designs...
Come On. That Completely Overdone And Useless Fin Styling During The Late 50's SUCKED Big Time. The Fronts Of Cars Didn't Look Too Bad, But The Back Ends Trying To Look Like Rockets Was Pretty STUPID...
The funny thing is the Buick has more simplicity and smooth in lines...oh well both are badass
My dad owned a 1959 Buick Electra 225 all power with factory air. How can a Dodge compare to a Buick is beyond me. Dodge is more likely compared to a Chevrolet not a Buick
Imperial was, but not so sure that applies to Chrysler brand.. I associate them with Buick or Oldsmobile, and maybe Lincoln.. DeSoto Also compares to Buick and Oldsmobile and maybe Pontiac.. (and Mercury-Edsel). Dodge more Pontiac-Oldsmobile, and maybe the less expensive Buicks.. (and top of the line Chevrolets) Plymouth slugged it out with Ford & Chevrolet.
Was the Buick Nailhead V8 more failure prone than the engines from Oldsmobile and Pontiac? (Not to mention some of the Chrysler products' engines)
When the second generation Nailhead appeared (the 401 and a larger ?425) "Wildcat" were the issues of connecting rod offset or whatever corrected?
Buick's later 430 engine completely different? (I think the Wildcat engines were known for enormous torque) perhaps needed for the Dynaflo transmissions?
with any of these engines you could get a "Monday Morning Special" with a poorly fitted bearing shell or something mismatched on size or various cobbled undersize crankpin journals or some debris left inside that could result in an early spun bearing failure or a piston pin come loose or something and I don't think new car warranties were very long in those days
the warrantied were like 90 days... new car ownership was supposed to be 2-3 years... I don't think any 59 Mopar engines had systemic issues. I do remember GM having some issues... you had to run a big cam to get good power out of a nailhead which can lead to issues itself but dont remember any serious issues with them.
My dad had a thrill show back in those days!
I also had a blast in my '58 Studebaker "Silver Hawk" with the "power pak" 289 V8. With 225 HP did 0-60 im 9sec (pretty snappy in "those" days. The styling was "out of this world"!
In terms of price point, the mid-line Royal is a better fit for comparison with the Lesabre...ultimately 157,000 of them were produced--roughly 3/4ths of the entire Dodge output.
Chrysler's engine weakness for decades was in the oil pan design. To make room for the torsion bar suspension, the main oil sump was in the front. During hard acceleration, oil would be forced to the rear and the engine could starve for lubricant. The problem only multiplied as power increased, even in the 426 Hemi. Then again, Chrysler 727 would later be the best transmission ever made. Funny how they forgot how to make transmissions in the future. Also funny, Dodge comes with a clear warning label, but people still buy them..
simple fix would be baffling... i never heard of any starvation issues... i think stock would be fine and they added baffling pretty early to the stock pans... these 50s engines were rock solid...
Workmanship was at its worst in 1959. Both for Buick and Dodge!
59 was okay, the Dodge was stablized.... they had fixed all the bugs... LETS ditch it and go to unibody!
Owned both.... Mopar Wins!
Buick. Clean and sleek, greater visibility. Nailhead power. The Dodge is way too busy; it's confusing. And speaking of old design features, Dodge is still the rust champion.
but you admit dodge was the faster car? :)
It wasn't as bad as the 57 though.
Hello new friends- lost
Traveler with a question- did ALL
Autos have leaf springs back in the day? I know light
Medium and
Even heavy trucks had them - how do they measure how
Many leaf springs need to be used- fascinating studf to me- thank you before hand - god
Bless all
gm had coil springs.. but they bounced a lot more, Ford had leaf
Me and Brad Hamilton would really rather have a Buick! 😁
Than any other car this year? :)
@@02chevyguy If you're gonna deliver food to the boys at IBM for Captain Hook Fish & Chips, and you have to wear a pirate's uniform doing it, then a blue 60 Buick 4 door sedan is the car for you! And a Joe Walsh cassette! 😊
The Buick is a far more beautifully styled car than that Dodge.
Beauty is subjective.... Once I saw a 59 Dodge in person, my attitude kind of changed... they are plain mean looking... and pretty badass. Just seeing a picture, I thought they were a bit extreme...
Gotta go with the Dodge for the better looking car
the Dodge was a little less angry i think
Broderick Crawford would agree.
Dan Mathews drove Chrysler, Ford, and GM makes...
I feel sorry for that poor woman trying to exit from Buick's rear seat and keeping her dignity intact, especially after being forced into that provocative leg position astride the hump in said seat!
it was a valid demonstration.
Dont like the dodge nose..id go chrysler or desoto.
I thought so also until I saw it in person... It just looks mean as hell
Dodge quality was still alive back then. Chrysler products had a problem with body rusting. I did not care for that. Ziebart rustproofing should have come with that new Dodge.
they started dipping in 1960 with the unibodies and that helped but their reputation was damaged. They pitched it to the dealers to do the real final rust proofing thinking they could make a few extra dollars... the dealer put that rubber crap on the cars that caused them to rust out faster... but hey you sell them a new car quicker right? It was a bad idea. I think the 57-59 rockers are bare steel... I also know the other makes rusted also. Obviously Mopars made up a smaller segment and Ford who sold the most that year?? Those cars are gone also... 57 Fords were ugly to most everyone so they didnt survive.
@@autochronicles8667 You think the 57 Ford is ugly? It was a great looking Ford!
AND.. squeaks and rattles......even when they left the factory, up to current models. That is the reason I WOULD NEVER buy a NEW one. I have owned several " beater" Plymouth Valiants..... CHEAP because their value dropped like a rock!!!
@@jamesbosworth4191 Although Ford outsold Chevrolet for 1957, for the first time in decades, I think the Ford looked like it had a pituitary problem with its bulging eyes. I thought it was the ugliest of the low-priced cars, yet I thought the 1959 Fords were the most beautiful. Styling preference is subjective, after all. The 1961 Lincoln Continental and the 1963 Buick Riviera appear to be about the only cars which everyone seems to love, styling wise.
@@mikeakers3453 While I and most people like the 57 Ford, you are right on as far as the 61 Lincoln and the 63 Buick Riviera, and I have always liked the 59 Ford, as did most people.
Considering Buick outsold Dodge by 2 to 1 in the 1950s I would say that the buying public had spoken Thumbs down to Dodge!
I say thumbs up to both :)
Dodge basically made their car look 2nd rate comparing it to a Buick for 59...realistically 50s cars would have been really great IF they already had 60s engineering for the mechanicals....such a shame
2nd rate? :) And of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder :)
Both cars overstyled and grotesque although I think Dodge had the better engine and transmission. I think both roof styles weak and apt to kill you in a rollover incident although the Buick must have given great visibility outward,especially for the rear seat passengers.
I would rather have the "B" pillar roof support,I think at least some of the '59 cars still had it (sedan instead of "coupe") in hopes that a rollover would be survivable,I am not sure if seatbelts were available as dealer options in those cars-I think it was available in the '59 Ford
I think I would give Buick a couple extra points however for having a "Park" lock antiroll feature in the automatic transmission and the aluminum front brake drum which I think was brought over from the Pontiac sibling
I think most true rollovers were pretty much a death sentence.. in the late 50's cars. Your only hope was a soft rollover... The sedan pillar might give you a little more chance. They "bigger" window war was real bad for roll overs...
Rollovers are really one of the best arguments for using seatbelts and having them in cars,even installing in "classic" cars that are driven to shows,I think some judges consider them as demerits,"not authentic" but I don't think the auto show judges should count off for having seatbelts added to the cars
I think death often came in rollovers even in cars such as the 1950 Pontiac sedan which had a roof structure that should have held up pretty well in a rollover (ejection of occupants from the vehicle through the windshield or other windows) @@autochronicles8667
I remember now,at city driving speeds a Dodge ran a stopsign and T boned a "59 Ford which somehow ended up on its roof upside down,the driver got out O.K. ,I guess it must have been the sedan and if I remember the 59 Ford had seatbelts or at least offered them as an option (I think Ford advertising had been trying to sell on safety such as introduced features such as compressible shock absorbing steering shaft and hood hinged in the rear @@autochronicles8667
Comparing a Dodge to Buick is a total and complete joke. 🤣🤣🤣
I prefer the Buick. Love the Forward Look Chryslers in general but certain detailing on the Dodge is fussy and overdone - the twin tail lights aren't as nice as the New Yorker cathedral-style ones, and the front end is far too busy as well. The Buick looks absolutely wild, far more so in real life than films, but the fins wrapping around the entire car is a surprisingly harmonious design. Buick dashboard is very nice as well with the aircraft-inspired lower gauge pods, one of the last years they had a full set of accessory gauges instead of warning lights (Chrysler stuck with them, GM didn't). The '57 Chryslers did scare GM into revamping their lineup for '59, but they did a great job of it. Conservatives/introverts could still buy a basic Ford - unlike Mercury/Lincoln the Fords stuck with very sober and clean styling - of course any of them appear extravagant nowadays but by comparison to the late 50s competition they certainly were!
Ford styling finally came with the introduction of the '61 Lincoln.... It shocked the World!
So, soooo angry LOL.
Sorry but while the Dodge may have some advantages dimensionally and mechanically, style wise i find the Buick cleaner and meaner, with very little ripping off of Dodge. In 57 Chrysler rush out their all new line up too fast and their quality control was horrendous, which in a way started Chrysler Corp. decline. With a tarnished reputation for quality and a industry wide decline in sales in 58 due to a recession, Chrysler had to talk up the 59's, which were warmed over 58's, which were 57's in the process of being debugged. While I like the 59 Dodge, to me, style wise it was down hill fast from there (especially in 61), till you get to 65, and Buick was so far ahead by then Dodge couldn't even see their taillights.
Lets not get crazy... Buick couldn't touch the Dodge on the drag strip in the mid/late 60's... and the 68-69 Mopars are right up there. Chrysler did rush in 57... and Gm obviously copied and did rip them off... Its why Chrysler rushed and Chrysler made huge gains. It scared the sh*t out of GM... and yes in 57 they said the mopars were garish and cluttered and then promptly copied them. Chrysler would struggle with market share for quite some time... not until recently is it stable after mergers.
Those 57s were supposed to have been 58s, but the Chrysler guys saw Ford's proposals for 57, so they panicked and rushed them into production for 57, which meant that they were mass-produced prototypes. Chrysler never truly recovered.
One simple question: Which of these cars is more valuable as a collector car today? My bet is on the Buick.
you are way off... base 2dr coronet vs lesbre.. in #3 condition. 15k for the Buick, 25k for the Dodge, look at haggarty
@@autochronicles8667 Wow! That is something I didn't know.
I thought Dodge competed with Ford and Chevy in that category. I thought Buick was upmarket from that..more like Crysler field.
that was Plymouth... Dodge was a little higher... kind of Pontiac/Buick... and then Desoto... to many mid tier brands.... I can only imagine how much money GM lost keeping Pontiac/Buick and Olds up and running... These companies were not merged... they often were competing against each other... Check my other video where Chevy is trying to steal BOP sales.
Eat your heart out EV and Asian cars comfortable and with towing capacity of 10 thousand pounds
The '59 Dodge was a three-year-old design, and it looks it. The roof that was so low and light and new in 1957 didn't age well. Redesigned fins look tacked on rather than "of a piece" like the '57s, and even the '57 Dodge fins were the least graceful of _The Forward Look_ cars. DeSoto looked better. Imperial looked better. Hell! Even Plymouth looked better.
Dual headlights were available on some '57 Cadillacs and Mercury models, even on the '57 Nash, and Chrysler copied the diagonal look on the '61 Chryslers and the hideously ungainly '62-'63 Dodge models.
While it wasn't the engineers' car that one expected of a Chrysler-built model, at least the Buick LOOKED new.
They never give up: a coil spring IS a torsion bar. It's just coiled up to save space. The wire in a coil gets twisted, not bent.
Torsion definitely has different characteristics than coil though.
I’d rather drive a Buick any day
Dodge is fine for 59.
Dodge was on the third year of this body while the '59 Buick was completely new. This would've been a strong sales point that year, but this narration turns that around to criticize the newness as mere copying of what Dodge had already done.
well in 58 Gm certainly jumped on the fins and trim bandwagon... Chrysler freaked em out. 59 was another refinement when 58 turned out to kind of be a thud.
@@autochronicles8667 1958 was a recession year, so car sales dropped a lot. This also helped contribute to the first boom in Americans buying imported compact cars.
Hilarious. I will give Dodge this: Chrysler's torsion bar suspension was definitely superior to the coil spring suspension on the 1959 Buicks. Their looks were a matter of individual taste. I prefer the Buick's looks to the Dodge's and the 1959 Mercury's looks to either.The rest was just goofy wishful thinking. Regarding Dodge's stated invention of the tail fin, that dubious honor goes to the 1948 Cadillac. Harley Earl copied the tail fins on a P-38 Lightning fighter plane for his revolutionary Cadillac design.
Maybe more importantly, comparing a Dodge with a Buick is ridiculous . Dodge's direct competition was the Pontiac in GM's lineup and the low end Edsel in Ford's. The hierarchies for the big three back then were as follows, from least expensive and prestigious to the most expensive and prestigious:
Plymouth, Dodge, Desoto, Chrysler, and Imperial from Chrysler Corporation
Ford, Edsel, Mercury, Lincoln, and Continental from Ford Motor Company
Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick and Cadillac from General Motors
There was some overlap between models within each company's lineup, but not a lot. There were outliers such as the Thunderbird from Ford, the Cadillac Eldorado from GM and the Chrysler 300 from Chrysler but the hierarchies were as stated. The Plymouth, Desoto, Imperial, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Edsel, and Mercury are all gone now and the name "Continental" occasionally appears on Lincoln vehicles but it too is, for all intents and purposes, gone.
Both the Edsel and the Pontiac were much better cars than Dodge despite what you may have heard about the Edsel. The car that Chrysler built which was ostensibly comparable to the Buick was the Chrysler, and Ford's was the Lincoln. They were comparably situated in the market place but the Chrysler Corporation cars, despite superior engineering, were inferior to their counterparts from both General Motors and Ford Motor Company because of their abominable build quality. They rusted on the showroom floor. Parts fell off. Fit and finish were laughable. The 5 year/50,000 mile warranty that came later was strictly a marketing ploy. Neither Chrysler Corporation, nor its dealers stood behind their cars. They knew.
Incidentally the 1959 Edsel was a Ford. Pretty much every mechanical component on the Edsel came out of the Ford parts bin. Regardless of whether you liked the styling, the Edsel was no better nor worse than any other Ford Motor Company car. But it was better than any Chrysler Corporation car. If you disagree with this, you probably weren't around or at least you weren't sentient at the time regarding automobiles. There are some MOPAR (Chrysler Corporation) fans out there who cling to the fact that they were very fast. They were. But not for long. Any Chrysler-made cars from the Fifties and Sixties which are still together today have most likely been restored to a condition far superior to their original new factory build quality.
The automotive magazines of the time were well aware of this. They loved the high performance and superior suspensions of the Chrysler cars but despaired of their reliability. They were infinitely better looking than the Chryslers from 1956 back. However the pre-1955 Chrysler cars were probably the best built cars on the road. Unfortunately that ended for 1957. Fiats and Renaults back then were the worst built cars on the road - any road. Chrysler wasn't quite as bad as those but in an incredible burst of cosmic irony, Fiat now owns Chrysler and they are terrible. There is a reason you can see long rows of Jeeps on most used car sections of new car dealers' lots. They are Fiats. Yes they will crawl over boulders better than any other vehicle in the world. But not for long.
There is a reason that people all over the world who need serious vehicles that will stand up to the worst terrain over a long period of time buy Toyotas. If they are rich and the long period of time part isn't important, they buy Land Rovers, which, from a build quality standpoint are right there with Fiat/Chrysler.
Don't know about the 59 Dodge I agree the '59 Buicks were the angriest looking cars.
I never liked the style even when I was a kid in the 1960's. I saw those cars everyday.
But I did like the '59 Chevrolets they were much better looking cars. My first car in 1977 was a 2 dr '59 Impala & I loved it & the tailfins & the cats eye taillights.
I didn't like the slanted angled headlights of the '59 Buicks it was too over the top.
All my relatives bought Chevrolets in the 1950's & '60's.
Eh i love the angry cars :) love to have either one.
@@autochronicles8667So did I but only certain cars,
the '59 Chevy was where it's at for me. My dad didn't like them, the '59 Chevy wasn't a bad looking car it was the back end with the cats eyes & gullwing fins were a bit extreme for some people to accept.
It never bothered me where the '59 Buicks were extremely angry & made the '59 Chevy's look "nice" in comparison.
The '60 Buick looked a bit nicer.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
My father bought a 58 Plymouth and his next car was a VW Bug, LOL! he dident own a Buick till 1971 and That Skylark was the best car he ever owned!
I prefer the Chevy.
It was kind of unique with the "eyebrows".
This is hilarious. Styling is completely subjective and yet the narrator attempts to compare styling as if there were factual standards and not just opinions. Let’s not compare performance, build quality, engineering. Were we really this gullible in 1959?
Yep.
🚗🙂
Yes we were! America was all about affording big, gas-hog cars...Gas was cheap, 25-30 cents per gallon. Bigger was thought to be better. In some ways it was.
Don't forget, the narrator is a Chrysler guy, using everything he could think of to gain (perceived) advantage.
yeah this was only meant for salesmen. Internal only so they were definitely biased but still facts don't lie. Legroom.. headroom etc... brake lining size, they were fairly honest about horsepower also. They would often leave out the rarer option if they were the lesser in HP... and not talk about performance if they were the slower car
@@curbozerboomer1773 It DEFINITELY is. You get more room inside and you get a better ride.
.....I dislike the Buick somewhat less than the Dodge, but the only good looking volume built cars this year were the '59 Fords, T-Bird, and Lincolns......GM cars particularly were "bats--t crazy" looking and somehow even surpassed the bizarro styling touches that Virgil Exner used to spoil the basic designs of the Chrysler Corp vehicles......hands down, 1959 as a whole, had the worst looking cars of the '50's......
I'm pretty torn between the Buick and Dodge for 59... But I wouldn't say they are bad that's for sure :) Extreme though....
I think the Exner styling really initiated an era of grotesque and gargoylesk cars that leaked and rattled excessively but they sold like hotcakes-at least for the first couple of years -- he seemed to design some good looking cars at first for the mid-1950s but after that went bizarro--
Leaf springs gives a SMOOTHER ride than those "saggy" coil springs. Then why has Dodge (RAM) gone to coil springs in their late model "1500" trucks? This video is SO full of BULL S**T and " Mother Goose Tales" that I am LMFAO!!!
I think at the time, leaf springs were the better option as they were not using stabilizer bars in the rear yet. Also the springs were not a strut setup so a spring near the axle but away from the spring wasn't working great. A modern suspension supports the rear axle now with a lot more technology so 4 corner spring/struts are working better.
Buick should be compared to DeSoto, not Dodge.
Its a little fuzzy where Dodge was placed... and they used the lower end Buick... And they would claim Olds vs Desoto? I know typically it was Pontiac vs Dodge.
@@autochronicles8667 What I thought, also. High end Dodges and low end DeSotos against Olds. Buick vs Chrysler.
The Buick was a much better looking car! In my opinion.
These 59's were both two of the best 50s finned cars.
The buick is way better.
@autochronicles8667 ===After seeing and hearing this guy NIT PICKING our best bet would be a VOLKSWAGON as the ole VOLKS was ROUNDED ALL OVER and easy to VIEW☆☆☆☆