These old training clips are solid gold. Filled with *advertising speak* where inches are turned into miles and molehills into mountains. For mechanical equipment I Go With Dodge all the way. However for styling I like the Merc better. I've always found the Dodge front ends from that era as too busy. Keep posting these. You did a great job with this one.
Thanks yeah I love this stuff also... I know Roy Ross went really deep and I love how they just didnt phone each one in. They have different stories/themes.
Always loved most of the 59 cars, including the Merc. The 59 Chrysler, though, while nice, is not as nice looking as the 58, which looks like the 57, but is a better car.
That "Getaway Six" was available only on the Coronet 2-door sedan, 4-door sedan and hardtop coupe...but Mercury was not alone in cutting down on horsepower (most medium and low-price makes were seeing Rambler in their rearview mirrors)...
I wouldn't say "sales numbers" are indicative of a win for any brand. It really depended on what you were looking for ... drag stip? mileage... quality, fit and finish, options, looks etc. These guys were all about stealing marketshare from each other. Converting a Mercury guy to a Dodge was probably a huge win for them and still is.
i learned to drive in a 59 colony park black woody on red, a real beauty. 390 2brl. 126 in wheelbase, the turnpike cruiser was on a 128 in. base. the biggest mercs ever, separate from ford country squire. 3rd seat faced forward. my aunt had a 59 fury wagon. stunning. even a bit more space than the merc. love those torsion bar front springs, simply better control. 3rd seat faced rear as in gm wagons of the era.
@@friendofdorothy9376 i was never sick in any of the 3rd seat and i was in all of them. country squires had facing rear seats in these years but tight leg room was the result. my dad, a gm fan, bought the larger merc because of 3rd seat was forward facing. he wanted the buick, but he did not like the 3rd facing to the rear. only time i ever had motion sickness was a 64 buick 225 rear seat. those rear coil springs were not stableized against side to side motion.
Mercs were built on two different wheelbases: the shorter Ford and the std Mercury, so size comparisons were probably taken from the shorter wheelbase version.
Probably not... Edsel was placed above the Mercury. Mercury was middle tier and Dodge was a good comparison. Desoto would work but it was higher priced, but Chrysler was above all these. Chrysler was a "bankers" car... and the price was WAY higher than Mercury/Dodge... Chrysler was essentially Imperial/Cadillac status at the time. If you take the 59 New Yorker Sedan it was 4050$ its 42000$ in dollars today. The most expensive Mercury is still 25% less than the sedan. The 300C in 59 is 51,300$... which was EXPENSIVE...
