1956 Chevrolet - "Confidential" Film - Proof of the Pluses
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 лип 2024
- 1956 Ford and Chevrolet comparisons. Confidential - for Chevrolet Personnel only. This is the engineering center. Here we've just had a complete tear-down of a Ford & Chevrolet
For more on the '56 Chevy - www.carsandstripes.com/articl... - Авто та транспорт
Long ago GM really did take pride in their products. It just breaks my heart to see what has become of so many seemingly-solid and iconic US companies.
I never tire the old Jam Handy films. 👏
Little did these guys know that, the new then small block Chevrolet V8 engine would go on to be the most legendary engine of all time. Over 100 Million sold in still in production today (although Gen 1 are not available in new cars). It's also won more NASCAR victories than any other and has several class wins at LeMans.
So glad this movie is confidential.
shhh!
Fairfaxcat Don’t tell anyone.
"Another safety factor..." and they show us a steering column designed to go through the drivers chest in an accident.
Absolutely! Everybody in 1956 knew it was safer to be thrown from the car than to hit that cast iron dashboard.
@@feez357 The dash was not "cast iron." Metal yes, cast iron, no.
On 1968 Chevy Nova was the first equiped with colapsable steering. 5 years before volvo !!
N incentive to not drive like a dumbass!
Because the best safety feature was your common sense which people lack today
Dang, back when dome lights were an innovation lol.
And...Foam Rubber
Our Ford didn't have a piece of cardboard blocking the windshield
Lololo
They talk about fuel economy, but regular gasoline seldom cost as much as 25 cents a gallon. On another note, my mother had a silver 1950 Studebaker convertible. I absolutely loved that car. I wish I could buy one now.
back when people worried about a guart of oil not the price of a barrel
5 quarts means the engine gets treated better
Ive been putting 5qts in my SBC for 45-years..well maybe a coupe more quarts now.
Most of the cars of the 1950's had style and were very distinctive from every make and model from year to year. You can pick out a 1956 Chevy from 50 yards away. Most of today's cars look the same, and you have to read the nameplate on the car to know what kind it is.
LOL! That was a ploy to make you feel behind the times when the new models came out.
@@recplay3441 Detroit swapped parts among lines also, and was sued for doing so. Then, to avoid more law suits their adds stated "Power train parts may differ with model line, ask your dealer for more details".
Not from a 1955 Chevy couldn't,you'd need to be closer then 50 yards!
@@4thstooge75 front view you could see the "mouth" on the 55! Loved my 56, no "man who wears the star' could find the gas filler cap! Hint, it was hidden in left tail light! "Fun fun fun!, 'til daddy took the Chevy away"!!
@@DataWaveTaGo No.
The only reason that the 265 chevy did not use 5 quarts of oil.....Chevy did not include an oil filter. That changed with the 283 but the 265 did not have one. You can look it up. The small block chevy went on to dominate the street, drag strip and round track but to quote economy because the engine did not have an oil filter is almost laughable. I own chevies and worked at a Chevy dealership MANY years ago. Great engine but lets get the facts straight.
If the 265 had 8 quarts that would be a great selling point. I've taken probably 10 orig. fiftys motors apart and I was amazed at the lack of maintenance they had.I think the mindset back then was check the oil and change it if a mechanic talked you into it
@@williamreilly8520 Oils are also much better today.
My Dad had a 59 black Chev with fins , I loved that car.
Padding and Seatbelts Chevrolet first my ass the 1948 Tucker had these in 1948. Preston Thomas Tucker had these as standard in 1948.
Yeah all 51 of them built. If a car never gets to mass production it doesn't count for much.
Chris Lemaster They mentioned seatbelts, but the 56 Chevy didn’t have them.
I was young and dumb in 1959 when I picked a 59 Ford over 59 Chev new. I repeated the same error in 1969 when I got a Mach 1, 352 4 v , 4 speed. Same errors were never repeated.
They talk about gas mileage and power. Ford got around 16 Highway with a dog of a 6 with manual 3 speed. 65 Impala ss with 283 ran circles around it with 18/20 mpg same roads & speeds with conservative driving.
Fix or repair daily or found on road dead. Both correct.
Yes, that's actually true. I had a '71 Chevy Impala with a 350 V8 and two barrel carb. Ran great, and got a true 18 mpg on the highway. And that car was huge and heavy! I kept that car until 1991, and it was still running with 168,000 miles on it. Quite worn out, yes, but running! In '86, a friend of mine bought a Chevy Monte Carlo, and still drives it to this day. Nowadays, I have an '02 Chevy truck, bought new, and as is typical, it too has been a great vehicle and still is.
@Mark Godfrey Having a bad day?
351
I would take my 1949 Ford on any road trip today, if my Brother hadn't totaled it out many years ago. The flathead V8 was bullet proof, easy to tune up and so dependable. I miss the ole girl.
And slow too!
@@4thstooge75 yeah, people didn't run around like they had a firecracker in their ass!
I couldn't help bu laugh when he mentioned the chevy only needing 4 quarts of oil, compared to Ford's 5. That was because the chevy didn't have an oil filter.
The '56 did have a filter.
@@TheNlograsso 55 - early 56 small block shivvies didn't have a block mounted filter. However, you could get an optional filter that mounted on a bracket above the intake manifold. Sometime in 56 they gained a block mounted filter, and it was standard equipment. This presentation is obviously from early in the year.
@@HowardJrFord Had a 57 Chev One-Fifty with the inline 6. No oil filter
They did, cartridge oil filter. I've changed plenty of them.
@@ScoutPL on a V8 yes but the 235 inline 6 it was an option. I owned one that did not have an oil filter
Higher compression does give more power, and this is one of the main things that dropped in the late 70's and a V8 in the late 1960's had more than twice the power of the same size engine in the 1980's.
I had a '56 Chevy that I lent to my cousin, Mike while I was in the Army. He blew up the powerglide transmission. The tranny would downshift into low gear regardless of the speed the car was traveling.
We had a 56 Bel Air in the early 60's I remember Dad and his brothers talking about how it had the power pak option. About 1965 Dad and My Uncles rebuilt the transmission one afternoon.
Today's cars are safer, but the old cars had room and lots of torque, and we're fun to drive, I have a new explorer, and I just hate that gutless Mimi bus.
Speaking of safety, how about those steel dashboards !
Yea, how do you like how they dis padded dashboards and seat belts, and claim that "real" safety is had with a stronger firewall? I wonder if they knew how wrong they were when they made that statement.
I th
Things I can remember from my childhood I remember slamming my head into the dash of my grandpas 55 Chevy truck I sat back after that though
@@redneckwithajeep5001 I remember sitting in the back of my brother's 56 Bel Air, and the rear door opening up when we went around a corner. I hung on the armrest, dangling out of the car while he went around the corner. OMG, I am lucky I didn't fall out.
Then there was the lack of power steering. Fine when driving down the road, but parking it was a nightmare for him. And how about that "Gen" light flashing on when stopped at a stoplight ... something that was common in the years before alternators.
Yea, good times. Fact is, in a lot of respects, those old cars were junk.
Vic C funny thing is that 55 does that to this day. Never have fixed that issue. They were primitive but in many ways that’s the appeal of them
The first Chevrolet V8's were serious oil burners. They didn't mention that of course.
LOREN Reece Tire burners
@@MitzvosGolem1 many early V8's were " tire burners", but didn't leave a cloud of oil smoke while leaving the stop light like the Chevrolets. But, GM finally got the problem solved.
That has to do with the piston rings, and the top ring makes the difference.
Even worse if you had one without an oil filter. Plus people didn't bother changing their oil for the most part, and they used non-detergent oil and would sludge up quickly & start burning oil. The Ford Y-block engines weren't much better, you could hear their valves clattering from a block away.
I had a 56 bought it new in 57 loved that car
That does it for me. Where can I buy a new 1956 Chevrolet?
Many of those cars of that era may look real nice on the street today, but they're not.
There is a company that offers a kit to build new one, you can make it a 1955 or 1956. Same body slightly different styling cues.
Barret-Jackson auto auctions. Not for the 1,500 buck base price however!! :D
When I look at the cars of the fifties I realize that we have gone backwards in terms of styling and comfort, why are we crammed in like sardines in todays vehicles ?, I would rather have a Fifties Chevrolet than one of today's buckets on wheels.
Life could be Dreams 😁🎶🎶🎵👌
because of the 70s. americans never needed small cars so they didnt know how to make them, so the asian markets took over american markets in the 80s and 90s, once american cars caught on again they were still shitty. i think these days theyre getting sort of back to what they used to be, but not really. safety wise we're lightyears ahead.
i suggest buying a rotted out shell, or even maybe an aftermarket 50s chevy, and building it to look like an oldie but giving it modern safety features. you can even dress a modern motor to make it look like an old 265
Nicolas DeFranco you’ve said it so well. I love the style of the 50s but when it comes to safety, they were no match to today’s cars. Much as I hate to admit that with me being an avid antique car enthusiast.
Over the postwar years, cars that were lower were perceived as sportier looking, and all other things being equal, they tend to handle somewhat better. So there was always a tradeoff between styling and room. The first thing to go was the ability wear a top-hat while driving. Then seats started getting lower and by the late 1960s, GM was selling full sized cars in which the center of he rear seat was just thinly padded metal. When they downsized cars in the late 1970s, seats and roofs went up a little to make up for the lost space, but even they were still kind of low and shapeless. I saw a comparison of a 1952 VS. 1992 Buick Roadmaster in Consumer Reports and even though the 1992 had about the same space, the seats were so low that it was less comfortable. Now that there has been a shift to taller, boxier SUVs, you'd think comfort would be a priority, but there are still tradeoffs; a convincing SUV will have higher ground clearance and a higher floor, eating up some of the legroom that the higher seats allowed, even though many of them are nowhere near tough enough to be taken very far off-road. Even people who will never go off road will see an SUV with a low floor as more minivan-like. So it's still the image that sells the car and people try to live with the discomfort it causes.
@@pcno2832 there are suv's with low floors. theyre just called crossovers and are still generally lame.
Have 300k on all my GM 4.3 and 5.3. Only minor repairs.
Cheap easy to repair. Reliable.
Today's engines are far superior to those 1950's sleds. They usually didn't make it past 100K miles. People didn't bother changing the oil too often. The advantage they had was the 50's styling, too bad most of those were in the junk yard within 5 years then.
Just going to pause this for a while so I can go explain to my wife how a shorter stroke is better.
How so?
You prefer less torque?
Sounds like a physical reason due to your inherited anatomy.
@@4thstooge75 like they used to say: "there's no replacement for displacement"! Of course they were talking big block vs. small block,.... engines, that is!! LOL :D
But she'll appreciate your higher compression.
Just my luck that I had to see this 56 Chevy video just now...had a 56 2 door post w a 327 4 spd with a 410 posi in midnight black paint back in 1981. Still kicking myself for selling it to my younger brother bec.he sold it!...damn it! Good memories though!
Where are the seat belts they talked about? My 56 Chevy had none.
Ford offered seatbelts and anti burst door locks, GM didn't, so GM started a campaign to say Fords must be dangerous if they needed them
Seat belts for passengers was optional equipment, and the same for the wiper.
Seat belts didn't arrive till the late 1960's
@@4thstooge75 The federal safety regulations required lap belts for all seating locations starting with the 1968 model year. Separate shoulder belts were also required for the driver and outboard front passenger.
The state of Wisconsin required all new cars sold after Jan.1, 1962 to have lap belts for the driver and front outboard passenger. My father ordered a 1962 Chevy Bel Air with Positraction. However, there was a strike at the company which made Positraction which delayed the build of my father's 1962 Chevy until after Jan. 1. So my father had to pay a bit extra with the seat belts added.
3:33 Don't forget riveted shoes are less prone to fade, since the brass rivets help dissipate heat.
Back in the old days, we used to re-line brake shoes, so the riveted shoes would be "more economy."
Fun to watch is the 2009 , 1959 Chevrolet offset crash test on YT .
MAN ! I loved the big cars but check out the CARnage on this '59 compared to the '09 .... Amazing !
Ah...the infamous GM "X" frame really bad design.
That was before the bean counters took over gm
Did anyone else notice there are a whole bunch of parts on the tables they didn't talk about? In my mind when the production crew was done with that shoot, they would go to lunch, come back, reset and do the Ford version. At least they didn't try to convince me they were real people, not actors.
That's right, because actors aren't real people!
well i am sold ...i am going to buy a 56 chevy and put a zo6 engiine in for good measure
This was not a film to persuade the public but a tool made for the sales force of
Chevrolet who used these details to sell their cars to any who might be tempted to compare.
This is part of the reason the long-held reluctance to mention other brands by name was ignored.
Reading thru the comments of keen eyed viewers I'm surprised that no one mentioned - " the entire comparison was V8 vs V8 but when it came time to compare performance They switched to 6 cyl. engines". The reason is obvious, Chevrolet was new to the V8 market and the little 265 was still finding it's legs.
Sly son of a guns went they. They didnt thing we would evolve.
Oooh, foam rubber!? Did they at least blow off the splay with cfc's?
In the parts table,,,they showed both cars having 4 brl manifolds,,,,the 265 cu in V8 that came out in 56 was only 2 brl That quadrajet carb didnt come out till 59/60 and it was on the 348cu in and 409 engines
As a Swiss, I always loved Mr.Chevrolet's cars, as he was also Swiss born.
He was long gone by then, and was a race car driver not an engineer. He had really nothing to do with building Chevrolet cars.
I'm a Ford guy and this is making me want a Chevy, and I even want to watch it... Now a modern commercial? I just turn those off
@Liberty Tree Political correctness????? WTF are you talking about????? It's not a style driven market like it was back then. Today, it's price, payment, and technology.
Liberty Tree for me it's the corniness of the ads. Real people not actors? Lol ok. You think a Silverado is a ferarri 458 when it clearly isn't? Get out of the commercial.
One things's for sure - products from the UK offshoot of Ford were way better than the GM competitor (Vauxhall), despite similar designs and specs on paper. Ford Germany and Opel were probably a bit more evenly matched. Over time there too Ford gained the advantage.
These "advantages" went back & forth over the years. One thing that really sucked about these cars were the crappy automatic transmission's these cars had. 2-speeds, Powerglide (Chevy) Fordomatic (Ford) Ford at least went to a modern 3 speed years before Chevy did Chrysler went to the "Torqueflite" in the late 50's.
might i add you're looking very radiant Mrs. Clever
Well
Well said Eddie Haskell. I mean Daniel Lomas.
Right, and Mrs. Cleaver often said, to Mr. Cleaver: "Ward weren't you a little hard on the beaver last night?" LOL :D
Ford "Y" block engine vs the Chev SB-- no contest by a mile,
wrenched on both back in the day and the "Y" was way behind...
No, I'll buy a Studebaker thankyou!
Muy buenos videos sigan haci
Jam Handy to the rescue!
Another JAM HANDY Film!
LaVern Baker for the win!!!
My father bought a 1956 two-tone green V-8 three-speed Chevy 210 with tinted windshield and padded dash. How come that wasn't mentioned under safety? PS: my brother spent his adult life trying to find one exactly like it but never could.
These are the base low cost models. They state that in the video.
Police liked Fords through the 30s and 40s for the same reason as Bonnie and Clyde; because their standard V-8 engine was more powerful than the 6 cylinders of most other makes. Ford's differential gears failed often in the early 50s (so much for reliability). When GM and Chrysler introduced optional V-8s in the mid 50s, many precincts dropped Ford.
@Mark Godfrey why bother watching videos about GM products if you're if your not a fan. We get it your a fan of Ford products..
Was it normal in America that one brand "attack" another's product? not that i'm complaining but i've never seen something like this in commercials
Toyota has been doing this all through 2018 attacking the Honda Civic and the Nissan Rogue in prime time advertising.
So that still happens,interesting
comparative advertising is legal in a lot of markets, also this was a internal video for Chevy's use. not an advert shown to the public
Exactly; this is a dealer training film, so that the sales people in the dealerships can use this information when selling the cars.
i got it,i just thought it was a public Ad. i usually don't see much of this.
Car facts presented in a manner that made them understandable.
But they were wrong the first V8 chevy had was a 265,,,,,,,that had 165 HP
@@mrcoz1764 I fixed it for all to understand.
On a quiet night, you can hear a Chevy rust.
FORD = Fix Or Repair Daily.
@@eddiej.2354
FORD = First On Rubbish Dump
@@gabrieldekooker1595 love those old sayings! And any statement with "rubbish" in it, have to use that word more often!! Here's another for Ford: "Found on Road,.. Dead", and one for Chevrolet, not exactly an anagram but: "Shove it or leave it". And my all time favorite for Fiat: "Fix it Again, Tony" :D LOL.
8:09 Look where they put Reverse?
Things haven't changed much, have they? What a load of corporate horseshit.
Yest it is. So cunning this video.
How so, that _horseshit?_
I`ll stick with my 1956 Olds Rocket 88 thank you.
1956 olds rocket 88s are ugly
@@RattWorld To each his own.
I WISH THEY'D SHOW THE FORD -
CHEVROLET TRUCK DURABILITY
TEST FILMED AT FORD'S TEST
TRACK !
Look for it, no doubt on UA-cam somewhere.
Chevrolet Bow-Tie guys quick to blow and cheapest as hell to rebuild little Pierre the Frenchman's dream pure
Got me sold.
So they are saying that the barrier arch is better than padding and belts?? Pfft..really??
cdful2000 No I think they meant as a whole on safety upgrades, Fords didnt have belts either. Belts werent standard in all cars until 1964, 9 years after this was filmed.
For '56 Ford had a safety package which included 2 seat belts, dash padding, much improved door latches compared to 55, and a deep dish steering wheel. It was a fairly serious effort, and the public yawned.
They convinced me buy one and I still drive it...1/4 mile at a time.
Ok fast and furious lol
Sorry but I like them both! I owned a 1955 Chev ( used ) and I drove my friend's Ford too,...and I actually preferred the Ford.
Me too, had a 55 Ford wagon in H.S. and 56 Chevy Belaire, drove latter car across country twice to Army duty stations out side Wash. D.C. in 67-69.
what? I was watching a ford made video and their findings were almost the exact opposite
Naturally You point out your strengths to sell your car over the competition. This was a salesman's training film.
Yes Yes But what about the seat belts ?!?
ما اجمل هاؤلا المهندسين
Cheverolet has balls..Ford, not so much
Both were great apples and oranges
Chevy was great. Every car company has their era. Best vehicle on the road these days is a Honda.
@@RealmsofPixelation too bad all new cars are ugly generic plastic bubbles with no visibility.
If a blue oval is on it, you don't want it !
Right, Cheby's had balls, we called those "dingle balls/berries" that hung all around the edge of the headliner,....on "low-rider's" cars,... back in the day!! ; )
anyone see the face in the foam at 5.47?
you mean cotton stuffing
What was the price comparison ?
Okay who invited Debbie downer
First Rule In advertising...keep saying economy many times and it tricks them into thinking they are saving but really paying more.
These two cars are almost perfectly matched
Mine was the 57 Ford Fairline
being born 1951 I drove both of these cars, six & v8.. In my opinion the Ford was better to drive but the Chevy was a bit better build quality, the1956 Ford Victoria is one of the best looking cars in the low price field ever built..
Granted, a 56 Vicky is simply beautiful
I'll take one of each !
I was lucky enough to have one each, a 55 Ford wagon and a 56 Chevy Belaire, both V8's. They were both pretty much "bullet proof", for the kid I was driving them then!! :D
That announcer sounds a lot like Ronald Regan
All 3 had good and bad Ford GM and Chrysler. Chrysler had the best automatics. All 3 were pretty. Apples and Oranges.
I'll take a 1957 Desoto over a Ford or Chevrolet anytime.......345 HP 5:15 to 1 gears Flat Out Gone, baby........Just Gone.
I notice that the _beautiful_ 1956 Mopar is absent...best of the Big Three that year.
What happened since then? One wonders...
Nothing !
Plastic cars!!!
Narrator sounds like Blake Carrington and Charles Townsend, John Forsythe.
Guess what? Its all hype. He said Fords "overall glass area" was smaller, not Fords windshield.
It also matters how far away the glass is; if a piece of glass is further away, it needs to be bigger for the same viewing angles.
No. The simply put the 166 sq. inch blocker the show how much overall was missing on a Ford in total, and admitted that fact.
Now that's...
Economy!
The parts aren't grinding together they are being lubricated for the bath of oil
'56, the year I was born ~ We did however, have a '53 Chevy Belair for 8 yrs till Dad surprised Mom w/ a '61 Galaxie 500 ...
I’ll stick to my 57 Plymouth Fury
Beautiful vehicle but extremely thirsty with its twin 4 barrel carburettors !!
Yes, very beautiful car
Already in 1955 the Citroen DS had rack-and-pinion power stearing, disc-brakes, hydropneumatic suspension with individually sprung wheels (no metal springs, whatsoever!), constant ride hight, irrespective of load, front-wheel drive, totally flat rear floor, seats made up fully of foam-rubber, one-spoke safety steering wheel. And a lot of other advantages, not yet seen even in modern cars!
Yes, the Citroen was way ahead. But in 1956, we had barely heard of a VW Beetle, much less a Citroen!
No automatic transmission, no air conditioning, less than 1/2 the horsepower, expensive and high maintenance. It failed in the US market for a reason- it was poor choice for the money.
Ugly as fuck too!
Yes, but it's French....
If you threw a fanbelt on a Citroen the air bag suspension would colapse.
6:22 They don't mention the Ford had more KNEE ROOM.
This is hilarious!!!
You gotta love the actual product details of these compared to the stupid fantasy commercials these days, advertising sucks now.
About those riveted versus bonded brake linings. Obviously there was a little bit more lining to use. But that may be false economy. When a bonded lining does wear through, there is full metal-to-metal contact between the drum and the shoes. Your brake job now includes the expense of a new drum. Also in the 50s, the adhesives were not as good as they are now, and the lining would sometimes separate from the shoe. Riveted shoes; the rivets act as a wear indicator by making a scraping noise when they touch the drum. The marks made on the drum by the rivets are easily cleaned up with a simple machining process. Riveted shoes negate the risk of catastrophic brake failure from lining separation, and let the owner know the brakes need work before it becomes a very expensive repair. -- a guy who for the first 20 years of his working life was a tech in dealers for all 3.
1956 saw the best mussel cars of that decade!!.😎♥️🇺🇸
Chevrolet was the only GM car that used bonded brake linings. Everyone knows riveted lining
Is better in dealing with heat.
The best year for Chevy. 57 became the have-to-have,but the 56 was much better looking
I agree and I do
I had 2 57 Chevy's. one was a 210 Belair no post with a 283 3 speed on the floor. the other was 4 dr 6 cyl.
Personal opinion, Most people prefer the 57 over the 55 & 56.
265 was hard to beat
Ford had the 272, 292 and 312 with Paxton Supercharger.The Ford rode smoother and handled better.The Ford had seatbelts and padded dash.Chevy had the 2 speed powerglide and for had a 3 speed cruisamatic.Most cop cars were Fords because the could take the punishment .Enamel paint is better than acrilyic and riveted brakes are better than cheap glue.Five quarts of oil are better than 4.Ford had a filter and Chevy had an oil bath.Fords were better than cheap Chevsthat rustedout in a year.
Fords engines were dogs compared to the Chevy, But Chevy had the crappy powerglide transmissions.
@@raylocke282 my 265 pg would out run a ford ,,,i still have it 400hp 331 with the same pg plus it has seat belts as dad ordered it
@@4thstooge75 mine in my 56 is holding a 331 now ,,not crappy an low can go to 80 mph
Interesting to hear from the Chevy perspective. I wonder what one done by Ford would say...
Bravo!!! Fucking bravo!!! 🏁🏁🏁
I can't believe they were even thinking of fuel economy in the mid 50's.. so Chev uses 10 cents less per tank with it's 25% better economy..
On the safety side, just add more steel to the firewall to stop passenger faces penetrating it.. forget those seatbelt things.. lol
The missing bit of info in this dealer propaganda is that every safety improvement was costed out and withheld until they had no choice but to add it..
Very true !
The 1956 Chevy hid a deadly factory frame defect. The 1956 Ford Thunderbird had a pioneer built remedy to the problem that killed so many Chevy owners even at speeds as low as 20 m.p.h. Mr. Ford noticed and cared for his customers. Mr. Chevrolet - not so much.
miller where did you dig up that bullshit ? miller says out of my ass!
My chevy is 60 years old and I still have my stock frame under it...and now you tell me this! Thats it I'm trading her in for a 57 Ford
Considering Louis Chevrolet was dead about 50 years by this time!
this seems more like a sales video than a confidential video.
It was geared for car salesmen.
I need to buy a chev.
Wish they had done an MPG on those cars that were all steal and glass no plastic back then
They did..........Both Cars averaged 16 MPG......Chrysler Plymouth Dodge and DeSoto averaged 14 MPG.......albeit with larger and more powerful Engines.
Amazing that Chevy mentioned Ford by name in '56. I always thought the competition was called "Brand X."
They didn't in their commercials, this was a film for dealers to know the competitions weak points.
Not in a commercial, this was a training film for Chevy car salesman.
Infamous 1950's Ford car door hardware ..... slam 'em shut, and kick 'em open.
Ford also had self-destructing differential gears in the early 50s.
they straight up felxin'
Both are great but I'd still choose the Ford
These cars can not be made because of the Government ,, they all have to meet fuel economy,, really sad i like cars with curves now we are forced into boxes
Kit cars exist for the Chevy, the car must be a kit car to get around the govt. regulations, but you can build one if you have the skills or the $$ to pay someone to do it for you.