I noticed on my mobile it was low. On the computer it's fine. Not sure what's causing this. Will try to figure it out. Sorry and thanks for the heads up.
People forgot when very key factor in the Edsel failure. The severe 1958 recession. Edsel was priced very close to Buick. Why? Buick was a license to print money. In 1955, when Ford was getting serious about designing, tooling, and building the Edsel, Buick had it's best year ever. In '55 Buick sold more cars than '52 and '53 combined! The Ford guys couldn't wait for a chance to cut into those sales. But by the end of 1958 Buick sales were down nearly 70% from 1955. That is only three model years folks. The market simply collapsed. And I should point out...In spite of the fact the Edsel was a disaster, the new giant unibody Lincoln was pretty much a failure, and the whole 1958 Mercury line was a dud, Ford Motor Company STILL posted a profit in 1958! Amazing
Sometimes I wonder if Ford had brought the Edsel out "quietly" that it might have stood more of a chance. The expentations were insane. The PR men made it sound like the 2nd coming! It was still just a car!!!!
If Ford had simply bypassed the 1958 model entirely, and simply moved forward to and released the much-better-looking 1959 model, it's possible that the Edsel may have been a success.
You got to hand it to him, though. This guy is good. I agree with a previous poster, they should have kept refinining the Continental Mark II and produced two versions of the Thunderbird. They tried to honor Edsell, almost broke the company, and he would have rejected it out of hand if still alive 15 years after his death.
Thanks for posting this. I'm just still wondering why there didn't seem to be a desire to evolve the Edsel into a upgrading product after the 1958 model year. The 1959 was a 1959 Ford with minor sheet metal treatment differences in the front and back. This seems to have been a defeat for the goals expressed in this video.
Robert McNamara did not understand why Ford needed a second medium-priced car, and, as head of the Ford division at the time, he felt the Edsel was a threat to his Fairlane 500, which he claimed "was a better car and sold for less" than the Edsel. Since the Edsel wasn't the blazing success it was made out to be, it was easy for him to order the merger of the Edsel Division with the Lincoln and Mercury Division and cut the Edsel to, as you said, a "Ford with minor sheet metal treatment distances in the front and back." I have read that were plans for a 1961 Edsel, but they were scrubbed when the M-E-L Division was formed...
The orinal plan was to bring back the Citation for 1960 and the Comet which was a separate name plate in 60 and 61 was to be an Edsel model but did not happen..
+Kenneth Southard Good question. I wonder if it wouldn't have been a better idea to hold on to Jaguar and kill off Lincoln. Maybe even Land Rover. But Ford needed the cash. One of the reasons they were able to avoid bankruptcy.
Ford was decent at nurturing it's purchased brands which made them valuable when they needed to sell unlike GM who cynically slapped it's different brands on mediocre global platforms and therefore decreasing their value and destroying their credibility (saab)
Furthermore and in conclusion to my briefest of diatribes, but first perhaps a quick history of the motor propelled carriage. In the beginning man had no wheel, but with clever use of stones he was able to fashion a wheelchair. Then man thought how will I power this conveyance? Much work yet remained to be done. With his constant updates to motor car development he eventually came up with this EDSEL story. And now without any further a due, I give you, ladies and gentlemen, but just one small story. When I was just a wee lad in my hometown of Kenny bunk port,,,
The 250 million wasn't a total loss. It forced Ford to expand its manufacturing capacity for the Edsel, so when the Mustang came along they were able to use this capacity. Another problem was that the Edsel production at the plants where Mercs and Fords were produced. In that sense, that part of the Edsel Division existed only on paper. No Division QC personnel from Edsel, they had to rely on the respective plant QC. If you can imagine an assembly line worker who has his momentum going producing a Ford or Merc and then all of a sudden you have to make an Edsel, which then they had to compensate for. My sources for this was either Dave Jenkins of Foote, Cone & Belding (the ad agency for Edsel), Charlie Camp, Edsel Div. Service Manager of LA District, and/or Gayle Warnock (Edsel Div.). I cannot recall who exactly told me this info. Too long ago.
Rick Dytewski Thank you for sharing. An interesting analysis that I've never heard before. Many good lessons that are still relevant today. That's why I like automotive history. These are like Harvard Business school examples and problems that are used to train executives.
You are welcome. I belonged to the Edsel Owners Club, since 1975. Some of the info that I provided might have even come from other sources as well. Met some interesting people involved with the Edsel over the years. I even met, Roy Brown the chief designer of the Edsel. He recently past away.
Another story that Dave Jenkins told me was he drove his Edsel (after the debacle) to a Ford Building to meet someone there. Another manager called and asked him to remove it from the parking lot. A sore point/reminder for some. Even when I tried to get guest speakers, some were not interested. It might have hurt their career and brought back bad memories.
Rick Dytewski I recall this story as well. Orders for Edsel were few and so only the occasional Edsel came along on the line. Not many guys knew how to put them together, which led to the many instances where the cars literally dropped small parts along the road, adding to Edsel's infamy.
he failed :) lost a ton of money also. Honestly made sense though... Desoto would be gone quickly... GM would hold onto Pontiac and Olds forever though :)
Hindsight is 20/20. We can look back and see what a failure the Edsel was. This speaker makes a sound and well explained case for the car. It simply didn't work.
rarusl It can be an example of factors beyond reasonable expectations like an economic downturn that eroded the market as they launched the car. Or an example of corporate group think that affects rational thinking. But the commonly held belief that styling is what did it in -- could have some bearing on the Edsel's flop. Maybe a bit of all three came into play. The car business is part science, part engineering and a lot guess work.
I have the April 1958 Consumer Reports auto issue, in it is "The Edsel Story" article. Even in its first year they knew it was doomed, all the hype, and not a very well built car. Over powered, gadget laden. They said it was a result of all the market research that didn't ask the right questions about what car buyers wanted. It should have been a small car which were becoming popular at the time, as the success of the Falcon proved two years later.
MerleOberon The Falcon was aimed at a different market than the Edsel. The "Edsel market" was NOT looking for a Falcon, They were looking for a Buick or Oldsmobile.
Investing $250million in the Edsel? No overhead cam engines? No full-independent suspensions? No disc brakes? All were available technologies at the time the Edsel was introduced, but ignored by the geniuses in Detroit. Also, GM & Chrysler were successful with their many mid-priced brands mostly because they'd acquired successful brands already in production & with a loyal following...Dodge Brothers, Buick, Olds, etc. Ford introduced the Edsel by demanding that all new dealers would be independent. Many Edsel dealers tended to be gas stations. I love how Emmett Judge says the new line of cars "had to have graceful styling" I guess that memo got buried somewhere in the bottom of the paperwork. If you want graceful styling, why didn't you evolve the styling of your own Lincolns or Fords from the previous year?
Now with Mercury gone there's nothing to fill the gap between Ford and Lincoln. FoMoCo is even worse off than when they brought out the Edsel. They would be really hurting if the F150 didn't sell so well.
This just makes it WORSE! (I'm actually a former owner, of THREE Edsels over the years, which i loved. I hope yet to have another!) But, geeeeez, this guy---is "Ernest Judge" a suspicious-sounding name, or WHAT?---lays out a "case" that---IF ONLY TRUE!---augured for at LEAST the "20 million new Americans" to be riding in Edsels; even if 6 to a car, that'd been 3.6 million cars. Wha' hoppened? Gosh, from what The Judge says here Hudson & Packard shoulda tooled back up! -----There were GOOD REASONS why FoMoCo was ALWAYS Number 2, why GM was always Number 1. GM did stuff right; Ford committeed everything to death not infrequently of age itself. TEN YEARS in "development"? Even allowing for hyperbole the statement kinda nails it right there---and, more being the pity, history & documents actually verify the assertion. -----The stories of this disaster are many, & as a true Edsel fan i revel in them all, the most inane my favorites. But, lemme toss up a couple: 'twas said the make "cost" Ford a quarter-billion NINETEEN-FIFTIES dollars; that for these bucks evidently (well, accountants so accounted) burned up, the company could have come out with less red had it simply GIVEN AWAY a HUNDRED THOUSAND Mercurys*. Take that as a given, & put it over THERE. Now, look at this HERE: in November 1960, NOT A LITTLE for his "accomplishment" of TRULY KILLING THE EDSEL DEAD, a guy named McNamara was named the first non-Ford-family president of FoMoCo. When he wasn't X-ing out whole product lines or factories, he was micromanaging. Hypnotized Ford board applauded his elimination of a liner mat in the Ford Falcon (originally conceived as a "small Edsel") cuz it saved 10 CENTS per vehicle. -----One can toil in grime for a million dimes, or THINK and cover most of the marketplace, doing swell by selling half of it. FoMoCo got what it deserved, but the Edsel didn't deserve what it got. I loved my Edsels though, & love to see them if increasingly only in pictures. -----The 1950s were the best of times even in their worst of times. * Another murder victim we don't have space for here.
King Rose Archives Yep. People in the medium/upper medium market tended to be conservatve a d cautious, In a bad economy they wouldt've took a chance on the unknown. Those in 58 still with "more than Ford/Chevy" money just went with a Dodge or Pontiac. The other upper upper lines (Mer ury,Chrysler,Buick ,Olds,Desoto) also had huge sales losses in 1958. Those only survived do to resale loyalty,something Edsel never had a chance to build. Remember Desoto died only a year after Edsel, And really only Pontiac,Dodge,Olds and Buick FULLY recovered by 1965.
this is precisely what is (was) wrong with corporate America--the VW bug was virtually the same for decades and outsold them all!.. and was not a really good car either
brian lowe The type of buyer the Edsel was aimed at wasn't the type who would have bought a WV Bug, any more than a Ford Falcon buyer would bought a Buick Roadmaster.
Boy, this was so sad to watch...10 years of peoples lives....and all up in smoke in 2 years! The sad part is that everything they said was true. But just designed an ugly car, the only untruth was that it wasn't a graceful looking car, it was an ugly looking car with the Horse Collar Grill. Such a shame......
OsbornTramain The sour economy didn't help the Edsel's chances either. A confluence of events. But I agree it is sad. Interesting how these things can take on a life of their own and no one in the organization said, "this is an ugly car."
Scooter George Yes, over at ChryCo, Virgil Exner was making the whole 1961 & 1962 lineups as ugly as the '58 Edsel. Only a few DeSotos were made for 1961 and when production was halted in November, 1960 dealers couldn't sell the cars for months. ChryCo refused to buy them back so the dealers were stuck with the inventory and expense.
I recently watched a Dealer Promo film of Plymouth sale executives in 1963 reviewing the new 63 models and they said right to the dealers, " the first thing you notice when you look at these cars is that they aren't 1962's anymore!" That's a pretty telling story when they themselves are refering to how ugly the 62 line was.
Everyone who hyped up this car found out that it didn’t turn out anywhere near their predictions. Chrysler has a better car than this Edsel at the time.
$250 million then, $2.5 billion in todays dollars. And pick your reason for the failure. Styling. Market research gone awry. Economics. A perceived need not there. Confused consumers. Over hyped. Pricing. Lack of interest from Ford management. No market base. I have read that all those factors have been attributed to the Edsel's failure. Regardless of the reason, the Edsel is the hallmark for a flop.
Yes, Ford made a bad mistake losing Jaguar. Lincoln will never be a wanted high end car, and a Jag will always say class. They are thinking of bringing the Continental back, but it looks like a knock off Hyundai and doesn't even have suicide doors. They don't know how to play to Lincoln's very limited strengths. There must have been a lot of spying going on in the 50's, the 58 Edsel looks very close to the Packard Predictor built in 55, and the proposed 57 models. The Packard was more graceful with it's vertical grill and general body lines.
Ford motor company original WHIZ KID Robert McNamara wanted it named for himself and when it wasn't he said that's it I'm outa here. That pesky south east Asia might hold some interest for me.
Only 20 secs in and already some problems with this 'pitch' he references Adam and Eve to blatantly appeal to Christians, but is he insinuating that Adam and Eve would have wanted this car in the garden of Eden? That's not very clear. Then he claims the fact this wasn't easy is "off the record." It's impossible for an obviously (badly) rehearsed pitch for a camera to be off the record. He's putting it on the record by recording it. I can't watch any more of this, even for historical purposes. It's bad in any age.
I noticed on my mobile it was low. On the computer it's fine. Not sure what's causing this. Will try to figure it out. Sorry and thanks for the heads up.
People forgot when very key factor in the Edsel failure. The severe 1958 recession. Edsel was priced very close to Buick. Why? Buick was a license to print money. In 1955, when Ford was getting serious about designing, tooling, and building the Edsel, Buick had it's best year ever. In '55 Buick sold more cars than '52 and '53 combined! The Ford guys couldn't wait for a chance to cut into those sales. But by the end of 1958 Buick sales were down nearly 70% from 1955. That is only three model years folks. The market simply collapsed. And I should point out...In spite of the fact the Edsel was a disaster, the new giant unibody Lincoln was pretty much a failure, and the whole 1958 Mercury line was a dud, Ford Motor Company STILL posted a profit in 1958! Amazing
I think Edsel Rocks ! I own 58 Bermuda.
Sometimes I wonder if Ford had brought the Edsel out "quietly" that it might have stood more of a chance. The expentations were insane. The PR men made it sound like the 2nd coming! It was still just a car!!!!
Market research at is most blatant
If Ford had simply bypassed the 1958 model entirely, and simply moved forward to and released the much-better-looking 1959 model, it's possible that the Edsel may have been a success.
You got to hand it to him, though.
This guy is good.
I agree with a previous poster, they should have kept refinining the Continental Mark II and produced two versions of the Thunderbird.
They tried to honor Edsell, almost broke the company, and he would have rejected it out of hand if still alive 15 years after his death.
The days of 36-month payments, not 96.😊
Thanks for posting this. I'm just still wondering why there didn't seem to be a desire to evolve the Edsel into a upgrading product after the 1958 model year. The 1959 was a 1959 Ford with minor sheet metal treatment differences in the front and back. This seems to have been a defeat for the goals expressed in this video.
Robert McNamara did not understand why Ford needed a second medium-priced car, and, as head of the Ford division at the time, he felt the Edsel was a threat to his Fairlane 500, which he claimed "was a better car and sold for less" than the Edsel. Since the Edsel wasn't the blazing success it was made out to be, it was easy for him to order the merger of the Edsel Division with the Lincoln and Mercury Division and cut the Edsel to, as you said, a "Ford with minor sheet metal treatment distances in the front and back." I have read that were plans for a 1961 Edsel, but they were scrubbed when the M-E-L Division was formed...
The orinal plan was to bring back the Citation for 1960 and the Comet which was a separate name plate in 60 and 61 was to be an Edsel model but did not happen..
I wonder if the purchase and later fire sale of Jaguar, Rover, Volvo, and Aston Martin was actually a worse debacle that the Edsel.
+Kenneth Southard Good question. I wonder if it wouldn't have been a better idea to hold on to Jaguar and kill off Lincoln. Maybe even Land Rover. But Ford needed the cash. One of the reasons they were able to avoid bankruptcy.
Ford was decent at nurturing it's purchased brands which made them valuable when they needed to sell unlike GM who cynically slapped it's different brands on mediocre global platforms and therefore decreasing their value and destroying their credibility (saab)
Furthermore and in conclusion to my briefest of diatribes, but first perhaps a quick history of the motor propelled carriage. In the beginning man had no wheel, but with clever use of stones he was able to fashion a wheelchair. Then man thought how will I power this conveyance? Much work yet remained to be done. With his constant updates to motor car development he eventually came up with this EDSEL story. And now without any further a due, I give you, ladies and gentlemen, but just one small story.
When I was just a wee lad in my hometown of Kenny bunk port,,,
You have far better ears than me to make anything out of the sound!
The 250 million wasn't a total loss. It forced Ford to expand its manufacturing capacity for the Edsel, so when the Mustang came along they were able to use this capacity. Another problem was that the Edsel production at the plants where Mercs and Fords were produced. In that sense, that part of the Edsel Division existed only on paper. No Division QC personnel from Edsel, they had to rely on the respective plant QC. If you can imagine an assembly line worker who has his momentum going producing a Ford or Merc and then all of a sudden you have to make an Edsel, which then they had to compensate for. My sources for this was either Dave Jenkins of Foote, Cone & Belding (the ad agency for Edsel), Charlie Camp, Edsel Div. Service Manager of LA District, and/or Gayle Warnock (Edsel Div.). I cannot recall who exactly told me this info. Too long ago.
Rick Dytewski Thank you for sharing. An interesting analysis that I've never heard before. Many good lessons that are still relevant today. That's why I like automotive history. These are like Harvard Business school examples and problems that are used to train executives.
You are welcome. I belonged to the Edsel Owners Club, since 1975. Some of the info that I provided might have even come from other sources as well. Met some interesting people involved with the Edsel over the years. I even met, Roy Brown the chief designer of the Edsel. He recently past away.
It is interesting. Edsel became the whipping boy for bad corporate decision making. But we never hear about what the process was and the aftermath.
Another story that Dave Jenkins told me was he drove his Edsel (after the debacle) to a Ford Building to meet someone there. Another manager called and asked him to remove it from the parking lot. A sore point/reminder for some. Even when I tried to get guest speakers, some were not interested. It might have hurt their career and brought back bad memories.
Rick Dytewski I recall this story as well. Orders for Edsel were few and so only the occasional Edsel came along on the line. Not many guys knew how to put them together, which led to the many instances where the cars literally dropped small parts along the road, adding to Edsel's infamy.
Just a heads up: Emmett Judge is his name. He was the head of product planning for Lincoln-Mercury.
he failed :) lost a ton of money also. Honestly made sense though... Desoto would be gone quickly... GM would hold onto Pontiac and Olds forever though :)
@@mikes2460 They are gone too.
It’s time to make the case for Edsel.
lol lets not...
Hindsight is 20/20. We can look back and see what a failure the Edsel was. This speaker makes a sound and well explained case for the car. It simply didn't work.
rarusl It can be an example of factors beyond reasonable expectations like an economic downturn that eroded the market as they launched the car. Or an example of corporate group think that affects rational thinking. But the commonly held belief that styling is what did it in -- could have some bearing on the Edsel's flop. Maybe a bit of all three came into play. The car business is part science, part engineering and a lot guess work.
+silverbird58 Actually the remnants of the Edsel plants because assembly plants for the highly successful Mustangs and Falcons..
People knew they were getting a worked-over Ford.
I have the April 1958 Consumer Reports auto issue, in it is "The Edsel Story" article. Even in its first year they knew it was doomed, all the hype, and not a very well built car. Over powered, gadget laden. They said it was a result of all the market research that didn't ask the right questions about what car buyers wanted. It should have been a small car which were becoming popular at the time, as the success of the Falcon proved two years later.
MerleOberon The Falcon was aimed at a different market than the Edsel. The "Edsel market" was NOT looking for a Falcon, They were looking for a Buick or Oldsmobile.
Apparently, McNamara was opposed to the entire Edsel project.
Gadget loaded, just like today. Accidents waiting to happen,,I guess we were smarter in the 50s 😅
I actually really like the Edsel.......
Investing $250million in the Edsel? No overhead cam engines? No full-independent suspensions? No disc brakes? All were available technologies at the time the Edsel was introduced, but ignored by the geniuses in Detroit. Also, GM & Chrysler were successful with their many mid-priced brands mostly because they'd acquired successful brands already in production & with a loyal following...Dodge Brothers, Buick, Olds, etc. Ford introduced the Edsel by demanding that all new dealers would be independent. Many Edsel dealers tended to be gas stations. I love how Emmett Judge says the new line of cars "had to have graceful styling" I guess that memo got buried somewhere in the bottom of the paperwork. If you want graceful styling, why didn't you evolve the styling of your own Lincolns or Fords from the previous year?
Good points
What ever happened to the Mustang horse my dad made?id like to come see
I still don't understand the supposed need for Edsel - I would have thought that Mercury would fill that position in the lineup...(?) 🤔
They should have called it the Durante, after Jimmy and his enormous schnozzola. That's what the Edsel looked like with its bizarre grille.
Now with Mercury gone there's nothing to fill the gap between Ford and Lincoln. FoMoCo is even worse off than when they brought out the Edsel. They would be really hurting if the F150 didn't sell so well.
Audio sucks!!
after driving a mid fifties ford, people found out that GM cars were better built??
If they had kept its code name "The Intermediate Car" as the car name, they would have killed the words "Intermediate" and "Car"
Ford engineers and stylists had privately named the car "Ventura" (which, of course, became a successful series for Pontiac)
King Rose Archives: OH SURE!! Show me a picture of a 1957 MERCURY to entice me to watch the video.
The old bait and switch ploy. Gets them every time.
This just makes it WORSE! (I'm actually a former owner, of THREE Edsels over the years, which i loved. I hope yet to have another!) But, geeeeez, this guy---is "Ernest Judge" a suspicious-sounding name, or WHAT?---lays out a "case" that---IF ONLY TRUE!---augured for at LEAST the "20 million new Americans" to be riding in Edsels; even if 6 to a car, that'd been 3.6 million cars. Wha' hoppened? Gosh, from what The Judge says here Hudson & Packard shoulda tooled back up!
-----There were GOOD REASONS why FoMoCo was ALWAYS Number 2, why GM was always Number 1. GM did stuff right; Ford committeed everything to death not infrequently of age itself. TEN YEARS in "development"? Even allowing for hyperbole the statement kinda nails it right there---and, more being the pity, history & documents actually verify the assertion.
-----The stories of this disaster are many, & as a true Edsel fan i revel in them all, the most inane my favorites. But, lemme toss up a couple: 'twas said the make "cost" Ford a quarter-billion NINETEEN-FIFTIES dollars; that for these bucks evidently (well, accountants so accounted) burned up, the company could have come out with less red had it simply GIVEN AWAY a HUNDRED THOUSAND Mercurys*. Take that as a given, & put it over THERE. Now, look at this HERE: in November 1960, NOT A LITTLE for his "accomplishment" of TRULY KILLING THE EDSEL DEAD, a guy named McNamara was named the first non-Ford-family president of FoMoCo. When he wasn't X-ing out whole product lines or factories, he was micromanaging. Hypnotized Ford board applauded his elimination of a liner mat in the Ford Falcon (originally conceived as a "small Edsel") cuz it saved 10 CENTS per vehicle.
-----One can toil in grime for a million dimes, or THINK and cover most of the marketplace, doing swell by selling half of it. FoMoCo got what it deserved, but the Edsel didn't deserve what it got. I loved my Edsels though, & love to see them if increasingly only in pictures.
-----The 1950s were the best of times even in their worst of times.
* Another murder victim we don't have space for here.
No sound?
This guy is good.
If it had a different grill and a slicker looking body it probably would have sold better
And if the economy hadn't taken a dip that would have helped too.
King Rose Archives Yep. People in the medium/upper medium market tended to be conservatve a d cautious, In a bad economy they wouldt've took a chance on the unknown. Those in 58 still with "more than Ford/Chevy" money just went with a Dodge or Pontiac. The other upper upper lines (Mer ury,Chrysler,Buick ,Olds,Desoto) also had huge sales losses in 1958. Those only survived do to resale loyalty,something Edsel never had a chance to build. Remember Desoto died only a year after Edsel, And really only Pontiac,Dodge,Olds and Buick FULLY recovered by 1965.
this is precisely what is (was) wrong with corporate America--the VW bug was virtually the same for decades and outsold them all!.. and was not a really good car either
brian lowe The type of buyer the Edsel was aimed at wasn't the type who would have bought a WV Bug, any more than a Ford Falcon buyer would bought a Buick Roadmaster.
Yes, Its not just you guys, I thought something was wrong with my equipment! lol
Boy, this was so sad to watch...10 years of peoples lives....and all up in smoke in 2 years! The sad part is that everything they said was true. But just designed an ugly car, the only untruth was that it wasn't a graceful looking car, it was an ugly looking car with the Horse Collar Grill. Such a shame......
OsbornTramain The sour economy didn't help the Edsel's chances either. A confluence of events. But I agree it is sad. Interesting how these things can take on a life of their own and no one in the organization said, "this is an ugly car."
I think the terminology is "group think" where nobody wants to say anything.....
OsbornTramain
A year or so after Edsel failed, the Desoto went away as well.
Scooter George Yes, over at ChryCo, Virgil Exner was making the whole 1961 & 1962 lineups as ugly as the '58 Edsel. Only a few DeSotos were made for 1961 and when production was halted in November, 1960 dealers couldn't sell the cars for months. ChryCo refused to buy them back so the dealers were stuck with the inventory and expense.
I recently watched a Dealer Promo film of Plymouth sale executives in 1963 reviewing the new 63 models and they said right to the dealers, " the first thing you notice when you look at these cars is that they aren't 1962's anymore!" That's a pretty telling story when they themselves are refering to how ugly the 62 line was.
Everyone who hyped up this car found out that it didn’t turn out anywhere near their predictions. Chrysler has a better car than this Edsel at the time.
$250 million then, $2.5 billion in todays dollars. And pick your reason for the failure. Styling. Market research gone awry. Economics. A perceived need not there. Confused consumers. Over hyped. Pricing. Lack of interest from Ford management. No market base. I have read that all those factors have been attributed to the Edsel's failure. Regardless of the reason, the Edsel is the hallmark for a flop.
Yes, Ford made a bad mistake losing Jaguar. Lincoln will never be a wanted high end car, and a Jag will always say class. They are thinking of bringing the Continental back, but it looks like a knock off Hyundai and doesn't even have suicide doors. They don't know how to play to Lincoln's very limited strengths. There must have been a lot of spying going on in the 50's, the 58 Edsel looks very close to the Packard Predictor built in 55, and the proposed 57 models. The Packard was more graceful with it's vertical grill and general body lines.
Lincoln IS a wanted high end car, read the press.
Don't believe everything you read!
Edsel was a solution, looking for a problem...also a car designed by a committee ( think Chevrolet Citation 😉)
>> only to have it become synonamous with failure
Um, SYNONYMOUS, not "synonamous"
Another damn video without sound, why don't they fix it, or jus take it OFFFF!!!!!
The enemy of Charles Schwab.
Ford motor company original WHIZ KID Robert McNamara wanted it named for himself and when it wasn't he said that's it I'm outa here.
That pesky south east Asia might hold some interest for me.
Only 20 secs in and already some problems with this 'pitch' he references Adam and Eve to blatantly appeal to Christians, but is he insinuating that Adam and Eve would have wanted this car in the garden of Eden? That's not very clear. Then he claims the fact this wasn't easy is "off the record." It's impossible for an obviously (badly) rehearsed pitch for a camera to be off the record. He's putting it on the record by recording it. I can't watch any more of this, even for historical purposes. It's bad in any age.