The Edsel and Lincoln were the Ford Motor Company’s most visible failures of the late-50s, but the Mercury was also an embarrassment. The ill-fated Turnpike Cruiser epitomized both the promise and futility of Ford’s ambitious plans to capture a bigger share of the premium-priced market.
When the Turnpike Cruiser was introduced in 1957, it appeared to have a lot going for it. Like the rest of Mercury’s expanded lineup, the new top-end series showcased an all-new body with a trendy lower-longer-wider look. And while the Mercury had an ample helping of sci-fi glitziness, it arguably offered more understated styling than at least some of its premium-priced competitors. For example, if you thought Chrysler’s tail fins were excessively large, you might have been comfortable with Mercury’s more modest protrusions.
Also see ‘Who were the five worst leaders of postwar U.S. automakers?’
Of course, the Turnpike Cruiser amped up the sci-fi look over lower-priced Mercury models with ill-fitting dual headlights and radio antennas projecting out of the roof in an odd way.
Mercury was trying very hard to move upmarket. The most expensive model for 1957 was a Turnpike Cruiser two-door convertible. This body style listed for $4,103, which was more than the top-end Buick Roadmaster convertible — and around $1,200 more than the previous year’s most expensive Mercury, a Montclair convertible.
Mercury’s styling actually improved in 1958
For 1958 the Mercury’s styling came off somewhat better. A new front end proved to be a strikingly clean and tasteful alternative to the baroque fare from from Buick, Oldsmobile and the new Edsel. The rest of the Turnpike Cruiser was little changed from the previous year, but it was a pleasant design that has withstood the test of time much better than GM’s premium-priced brands, which were all but buried in excess chrome. I would suggest that the 1957-58 Mercury has not received adequate credit for anticipating the angular look of the 1960s.
The Turnpike Cruiser continued to offer practical features that made it stand out. A squared-off roofline suggested a roomier back seat. The rear window retracted and air vents were placed at the top of the A-pillars to improve ventilation. A compound-curve windshield was reportedly among the first to use tinted glass to reduce glare. A padded dashboard had an unusually clean and functional look for that era. And a power seat adjusted to 49 preset positions (Langworth, 1986; Wikipedia, 2022).
Richard Langworth noted that for all of “its novel glitz, the Turnpike Cruiser was a sales dud” (1986, p. 189). In 1957 under 17,000 units were produced, and that fell to only 6,407 units the following year.
The sales drop may have partly reflected the nameplate’s demotion to two- and four-door body styles in the mid-level Montclair series. For 1958 the top spot in Mercury’s lineup was given to the Park Lane, which offered a three-inch-longer wheelbase and more traditional luxury features (Biel, 2021). The Park Lane’s proportion of Mercury’s total output over the previous year’s Turnpike Cruiser increased one point to a still modest 7 percent.
Mercury wasn’t doing anywhere near as well as Ford management had expected. A big part of the problem was something outside of the company’s control — a sharp recession that resulted in the output of premium-priced brands falling almost 60 percent between 1955 and 1958.
Mercury initially weathered the storm slightly better than some of its competitors. Despite a sales drop in 1957, the brand’s share of the premium-priced field rose one point to 14.6 percent. Alas, Mercury market share steadily declined to under 10 percent by 1959 — the lowest of the decade.
How could Mercury have lost so much ground?
How could Mercury lose a third of its market share in the premium-priced field despite expensive redesigns from 1957-59? One factor could have been that the brand was shifted upmarket too much. Up until 1956 Mercury had competed most directly with lower-level, premium-priced brands such as Pontiac and Dodge. In 1957-58 Mercury saw its prices increase to the point where they were more comparable with those of Oldmobile, Buick and DeSoto.
Higher-end Mercury models not only had to establish their street cred against brands with formidable reputations, but they had to do so in a dramatically shrinking market.
In retrospect, it may have made more sense for Mercury to continue competing in the lower-end of the premium-priced field and focus the Edsel exclusively on the higher end. As an established brand with more mainstream styling, the Mercury would likely have sold vastly better than the Edsel’s lower-priced Ranger and Pacer. (Indeed, Mercury’s Monterey series ended up outselling both despite its somewhat higher list prices.) However, if the Turnpike Cruiser’s roofline had been plopped onto a top-end Edsel Citation, it could have looked a lot worse than with Mercury sheetmetal. So sales might have been even weaker.
Perhaps the only way the Turnpike Cruiser could have done well was if it had been decontented enough so it competed against Pontiac. That’s essentially what Mercury did in 1963 with its “Breezeway” body styles, with their slant-backwards greenhouse shape. Might the Turnpike Cruiser’s more conventional appearance have had greater market acceptance?
Even though the Turnpike Cruiser could be classified as a market failure, at least it was a more interesting car than the Edsel. I would suggest that Ford’s much-anticipated new brand didn’t just fail because it was strangely styled — it also offered very little in the way of functional innovations to justify its existence. The Turnpike Cruiser deserves points for at least trying to be substantively different.
NOTES:
This is an expanded version of a “Gallery” feature that was originally posted Dec. 1, 2019. Prices and production data are from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006) 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.
- Biel, John; 2021. “‘Magnificence Unlimited by Mercury’: The 1958-68 Park Lane.” Collectible Automobile. June issue: pp. 56-73.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Langworth, Richard; 1986. The Complete History of Ford Motor Company. Beekman House.
- Wikipedia; 2022. “Mercury Turnpike Cruiser.” Page last modified Feb. 13.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Mercury (1957, 1958, 1963)
The 1958 Mercury Turnpike Cruiser was only a slightly more cleaned up version of the 1957 “Big M”…”Meet George Jetson” in 1957. I remember my father taking us to the 1958 unveiling at the local Franklin, IN Mercury-Edsel dealer. The Mercury was definitely in its second year of “Dream Car Design” and the 1958 Edsel seemed even more bizarre to this grade school car guy. Personally, I preferred my best friend’s parents’ two-tone white over light green 1957 Ford Fairlane 500. By the way, within less than two-years, that poor Mercury-Edsel store was converted to a new Kroger Supermarket, and if you wanted Mercury or Edsel in 1960, you had to buy one in Indianapolis or Columbus !
James, I must admit that I kind of like the Turnpike Cruiser — particularly in its 1958 iteration. The whole car is sprinkled with interesting design details that make it stand out from the crowd. Yet the Mercury wasn’t overly weird like the Edsel and Lincoln and not as overburdened with chrome as the Buick and Oldsmobile. In addition, Consumer Reports had good things to say about the 1957 model’s practical qualities, e.g., it was roomier than the Ford. I have been meaning to write something up on the late-50s Mercury, so your comment is a good reminder.
A big problem with the 1957 Mercury was poor quality control. The 1957 Mercury and 1957 Ford had the dubious distinction of scoring the worst of all cars surveyed in Popular Mechanics “Owners Report” series when it came to owners rating their new cars as “poor.”
Quality control was a real problem at Ford and Mercury in 1957. That was a big reason why Francis “Jack” Reith, the “Whiz Kid” who had championed both Mercury’s move upmarket and the 1957 styling, left the Ford Motor Company.
The medium-price segment was showing signs of weakness by late 1956, but asking buyers to pay more for a car even as its bad reputation snowballed during the model year certainly didn’t help.
The 1957-58 Mercury has worn better than contemporary Buicks and Oldsmobiles in the styling department. The Chrysler Corporation medium-price marques had more cohesive and cleaner designs than any of their GM and Ford competitors, but Chrysler Corporation had its own struggles with poor build quality during that time.
I read somewhere that manufacturing quality was a problem with the 1957 Mercury but didn’t find a citation. Thus, I sidestepped that issue and just did a quick “Design Notes” piece. I agree that the Chryslers looked more cohesive, assuming that you could vibe with those big tail fins.
At some point I would like to do a longer piece that includes a pricing graph which shows how Mercury’s market position changed. I would also like to do some graphs that show production broken out by series — and compare Mercury’s numbers with those of its chief rivals. For example, how competitive did the mid-level Montclair prove to be?
The thing that I find most striking about the Mercury is how much effort was put into upgrading its standing in the premium-priced class. A major redesign in 1957, a facelift and the addition of the longer-wheelbase Park Lane in 1958, a reskinning in 1959, and then a partial reskinning in 1960. That’s a lot of money. What did Ford get for it?
Arguably nothing, as the 1961 Mercury again became a reskinned Ford, and ended up back where it had started – in the low-medium price segment. During the early 1960s, the compact Comet essentially kept the division (and the dealers) afloat.
The combination of poor build quality and overly radial styling hurt Mercury sales in 57 and 58 along with the medium priced segment of the market suffering from the late 50’s recession. Both Mercury and Edsel with their over the top styling and mechanical gizmos just didn’t hit the mark to improve customer acceptance or sales.
James, my stillborn vision was put the Edsel grill on it, and replace the horse collar with the Packard Predictor blade. This is the 1958 Packard Clipper FoMoCo’s line. Mercury stays put, and Ford has a mid/premium car with a built in cachet.
I hadn’t thought about that scenario before — and it makes a lot of sense. Packard would have been a good fit as an upper-premium Ford brand, and in light of its reported poaching of Packard dealers I assume would have benefitted from obtaining the whole dealer network. Perhaps the biggest political hurdle: Not Invented Here.
The Mercury/Edsel’s cowl looks like it was a bit taller than the proposed 1957 Packard’s, and the beltline upkick past the B-pillar would have required some adjustments to the proposed 1957 Packard’s basic design. But then Ford would have inevitably given the Packard an at least somewhat different treatment . . . because NIH.