Even as I start to type this, I realize that I’m about to dive into the deep end of a filthy, unchlorinated public pool of hypocrisy. And then I’m going to swim around a bit. I feel like I’m being hypocritical because one of the Founding Ideals of this site is that anyone and everyone is welcome, no matter how miserable or boring or obscure or perverse their car obsessions are. And I believe this, with every rusty nut in my soul. At the same time, I think it’s okay to express opinions about cars, even negative ones, because, well, that makes life interesting. Hell, I even let our crankiest, most acerbic writer lambast one of my favorite cars ever, and sure, I also wrote a rebuttal, but the point is sometimes it’s just cathartic to lambast a car, especially one with such a huge following. And that’s what I’m going to do right now, as I tell you that if I learned a drunk, hungry wizard appeared and turned every ’57 Chevy into a nice corned beef sandwich, I’d be just fine with that.
The 1957 Chevy – part of the “Tri-Five” series of cars from 1955 to 1957 – is arguably the most iconic “American” car. I have American in quotes there because it’s not really America – it’s the icon of this idealized 1950s America, the source for what people call Americana, and all of the hokey, overplayed, tired miasma that surrounds it. For a classic car pushing 70 years old, there’s still a shocking amount of them around. About 1.5 million of these were made, and to their credit, it feels like most of those are still kicking, taking up way too many spots at classic car shows, surrounded by those creepy upset kid dolls and with open trunks showing old window stickers and newspaper clippings.
It’s not like the ’57 Chevy was such a bad car – it wasn’t – but it wasn’t that great a car, either. Sure, they had the legendary 265 cubic inch V8 that was introduced in 1955, but the overall engineering was about as unimaginative as you can, ironically, imagine. They handled about as well as most 1950s big American cars, which is to say lousy, like moving a couch on a furniture dolly. You could get them in like 19 different body styles and literally hundreds of two-tone and solid color combinations, and while that’s great and all, I can’t fathom why these became the default 1950s car over any number of their contemporaries.
I mean, when you want a Hawaiian shirt with cars on it, for reasons maybe you don’t feel comfortable admitting, chances are you’ll get something like these:

They’re covered in ’57 Chevys (and maybe some ’56s?), Bel Airs, convertibles, the occasional (and more interesting) Nomad, but all still these same cars. Sure, you can find shirts with other cars, but the dominance of the ’57 Chevy can’t be denied. Or justified, as far as I’m concerned.
I just don’t get why this happened? How did this one particular car get to be so dominant, develop such a colossal fanbase, establish such a massive aftermarket industry, and just come to dominate the mainstream classic car community for so damn long? How did this car end up with its iconic status to the point that it’s become essentially synonymous with ’50s America, and almost the expected follow-up any time anyone even says the year 1957?

There’s certainly other cars with rabid followings and strong associations with a particular time and place and culture and representations in art and Hawaiian shirts and all that, of course. The Beetle comes to mind. But the difference there is that when the Beetle grew in popularity and became an automotive icon in the 1960s and 1970s, at that time, it was somewhat unique in the mainstream culture, at least in America. It was foreign, small, weird, technically strange, and an outlier amongst the mainstream cars around at the time. It stood out. It became popular as a reaction against mainstream culture, which sort of makes its eventual climb to fame more understandable.
But the ’57 Chevy? I mean, it was fine, but was it really all that different than its big competitors of the era? Why did this car:

…get so much more fame and notoriety and lasting legendary status over, say, this car:

Ford actually outsold Chevy in 1957, even. And sure, there’s plenty of love for these cars, but it doesn’t quite reach the ethereal status of the Chevrolet. Or what about one of these:

Dodge certainly had the same sort of over-exuberant jet-age styling as the Chevy, and was maybe even more exaggerated. Hell, even the Nash had a similar sort of dual-fuselage jet-type hood ornament as some of the Chevys:

But, of course, none of these cars reached the level of the Chevy. And they’re just not that different. I mean, sure, there’s plenty of differences, but we’re not talking differences like what the Volkswagen was to American cars of the time. There are differences in details and trim and specs, but if you had to describe all of the cars I showed here just now in general terms – big V8 heavily chromed two-tone sedans with Paleolithic chassis designs – it would apply equally well to any of them.

What’s also surprising is how much the designers of the ’57 Chevy seemed to, well, not like the car. The 1957 model was supposed to be all new, but the new design wasn’t ready, so Chevy’s design team had to tart up the ’56 as best they could to make it feel new and different. The roof and doors and rear deck are carryovers from ’56, but there was a lot of pressure to make the ’57 look different. This Hemmings article notes how the designers felt about the car:
One man who worked on designing the ’57 Chevy is Robert Cumberford, who today lives in France. He distinctly remembers that not a single person who worked on the 1957 car liked the design. He recalls working 84-hour weeks with others in a crash program to design the ’57 model and that Harley Earl wanted the car to look as big as possible. To accomplish that, stylists stretched the fender profile to an extreme length, pushed the headlamps as far apart as possible and took the grille across the entire front end.
You can see how widened everything is, the grille, the lights shoved as far to the edges as possible, all to make the car look as massive as possible. These changes seem sort of bonkers when you look at the ’56, which was already an incredibly wide-looking car:

The designer mentioned above, Robert Cumberford, actually once commented on a Dean’s Garage story, where he found an old sketch he did for the 1957 redesign – which he described as an “emergency re-style”:
He says directly that
“It was a thrash, none of us who worked on it liked the damn ’57, and now it’s the one people revere. Go figure.”
Again, this was one of the people who designed the damn car.
But I have to be honest – I don’t think the car is all that bad, really. And I like the two-door wagon Nomad version, especially.

But that said, I cannot fathom why this particular year and model ended up becoming so wildly dominant in the classic car scene. I remember so many local car shows that seemed to have rows and rows of these things, and I’ve seen them on so much bad art that romanticizes Route 66 and paints in James Dean and Marilyn Monroe in front of ’57 Bel Airs, and I’m just sick of them. I don’t get it! I never have, and I likely never will.
I feel like in recent years the saturation of ’57 Chevys is abating a bit, as the population that really latched onto them is getting older and less likely to take them out. I’m not exactly sure how the market is for these things still – it seems pretty steady, maybe with a slight decline – but I can’t help but think we’re only a few decades out from a time when the last of the people who genuinely give a crap about these cars has died off, and there will be a massive glut in the market of unwanted ’57 Chevys, complete with stacks of Hawaiian shirts and trunks full of award plaques.
Maybe then I’ll get interested, when they’re so cheap and undesired that you can buy one for pimples and cram in the drivetrain from a Nissan Leaf and use it as your electric around-town car, or something. Who knows.
What I do know is that if I never see another ’57 Chevy again, I think I’ll be just fine. I’m happy to hear all the arguments why I’m not just wrong, but wrong and ugly, and deep down I know I have the abuse coming. But I just couldn’t keep quiet any longer.
Top photo and all images: Chevrolet unless otherwise noted









The ’55 and ’56 Impalas and even the stripped down Bel Airs were far more stylish, imo.
The 57 is a great looking vehicle and better than others of the same time period. However I do like a good corned beef sandwich. But most likely unless they are priced the same I could afford the corned beef sandwich.
I agree. Give me a 1957 VW Bus and I will be happy. Okay, a 1955 Beetle would be okay, too. I do have fond memories of a 1959 Impala with clear plastic seat covers. Fondness for the car not the seat covers.
Oh God, clear plastic seat covers. Did you also have Italian grandparents from Long Island?
I am half Italian and grew up in NJ. Need I say more….
Understood, lol.
They’re nice..but even back in the day I didn’t care that much for them and have never owned one. I knew a guy who built up a ’57 Ford in the early 70’s that would cream the Chevy’s.
The upside to this is that you can get some of the less-loved 1950s cars for what seem like reasonable prices. I’ve seen some mostly original, presentable, and drivable examples for well under $10k. I’m not sure about parts availability, but I have to imagine the mechanical stuff is easy to source even if things like trim, interior bits, etc. aren’t. I’ve always said I’d be happy with just about any Jet Age car, they’re all unique and cool in their own way.
But if I could pick any 50s car, I’d want a 1958 Plymouth Fury in red. Christine, in other words. The book was a formative experience for young me, though the car I had was my much more friendly Beetle.
How is the parts availability for the Fury? How many were built?
Looks like 5,303 Furies were built in 1958 but I bet there was a decent amount of parts overlap across the model range. The Belvederes are very similar in appearance and they made a lot more of those.
If you could share those numbers, I would appreciate.
Here ya go!
Belvedere
Club Sedan 4,229
Sport Coupe 36,043
Convertible 9,941
Sedan 49,124
Sport Sedan 18,194
Fury
Sport Coupe 5,303
More sales numbers here: http://www.forwardlook.net/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=44218
Great. Thanks.
Yep, if you’ve seen one ’57 Chevy, you’ve seen ’em all. I find myself completely incapable of caring about them and will walk right past any time I see one at a show. Just extremely not my thing.
’55 was the best of the bunch. The ’57 just had that “1 hp per cu in” claim. My father’s favorite car was the ’57, though I will credit him that he liked the Nomad the best. Reportedly, like old cruiser bikes, a lot of hot rodders ripped off all the heavy chrome crap to make them lighter. Now those are the parts worth the money. So it goes. They’re fine in that ’50s domestic way, but common as dirt and predictable and they remind me of my father, but that last one’s a personal issue. Setting that aside, they’re just boring. WTF weren’t Studebaker birds more popular with collectors?
Jason, are you feeling ok?
First the Steyr now the 57 Chevy,
I suspect it’s mostly something about the way “57 Chevy” sounds, compared to the alternatives.
When it comes down to it, I do prefer the Olds and Buick (I know the buicks are bigger) vehicles from the mid 50s. I think they are better looking.
I think when done right they are a nice car,especially in black.It’s definitely a generational thing.
The best part about the “Hawaiian” shirt is that you can customize it:
https://www.instagram.com/p/DAWSifPySjY/?hl=en
I do find them rather like the phrase “OK, Boomer” on wheels.
“I’m an OK Boomer. Just OK”
A very mid Boomer. an Ohio Boomer.
I don’t care one way or another about the car itself; it’s fine, as ’50s cars go. But yeah, that cultural saturation is boring and annoying. It’s like hearing “Stairway To Heaven” for the nine thousandth time. And if they were available in so many styles and colors, why are they almost always depicted as Bel Airs in either red, black, or pale blue?
Or “Steyr”way to heaven? Ha ha
(Comment from the other day:
https://www.theautopian.com/steyr-drivers-park-like-jerks/comment-page-1/#comment-764336)
If you really want to know the reason – Rewatch “American Graffiti”
Harrison Ford raced a ’55 Chevy 150
Ron Howard drove a ’58 Impala
There was a ’57 Bel Air in the cruising scene.
There was the ’32 Ford Deuce Coupe hot rod
And a ’51 Mercury – and a ’58 Edsel – and Curt’s 2CV – and of course the blonde (Suzanne Summers) in the white ’56 Thunderbird
Blame George Lucas.
I agree with everything but the died off people. I think there are still some people in their 70s maybe 60s who are passionate about them and have fond memories of them. But if they wanted one they probably already have one. So I understand your point. Vice grip garage has realize that and is trying to get the kids interested. I don’t really want anything to do with cars before the 90s with some exceptions. For trucks though it’s probably in the 40s maybe 50s. I think the reason is maybe the mid 2000s backwards trucks were for work then they became whatever they are now it seems the suburban kid or commuter car more then anything. Those old trucks can still do what they were designed to do for the most part where the cars probably not all that well.
Also, is hating on the Tri-Five Chevy the automotive journalist equivalent of music critics saying, “The Beatles weren’t that good a band, actually”? Like, it’s lame to like something non-enthusiasts like?
The Beatles were overrated and asnnoying.
Non-musician take.
And to narrow it down some more (and generate more, uh, responses) Paul McCartney only ever wrote one song and he just remade it over and over and over and over. Not dissing the production, the basic song. Way back when McC’s own songs were new, I could sense one of his, done by anyone within just a few bars. My hackles went up and I just knew McC wrote it. Ick.
The Beatles is a great comparison. They’re essentially the audio version of a ’57 Chevy (Bel Air, of course, it’s almost never a 150 or 210), emblematic of the boomer who has been stunted from too much drug use and hasn’t progressed beyond his late teens. They were fine in their day, but they became far too overplayed as to draw contempt, overrated, have negative associations for some of us, and most of us would be fine never being exposed to either again.
Geez, what else do you guys not like? Are the Marx Brothers not funny? Is Sydney Sweeney unattractive? Are brownies stupid and dull?
Groucho is a legend! I discovered one of the Marx Brothers movies as a teenager and couldn’t believe how funny it was and for so long ago when I’d see comedies only a decade or so old that aged terribly. I don’t know what the jeans controversy about Sydney Sweeney that brought her to my attention is about and I don’t care to find out, but she’s definitely attractive, though I prefer darker women. Brownies like the dessert, I imagine (not the younger girl scouts or the house spirits), are pretty good. I wouldn’t put them at the top of a list of favorites, but they’d be far from the bottom.
I don’t listen to much of anything I listened to in HS anymore, but I’ve known guys who were far older who seemed to never hear a song they liked that came out after they graduated. The Beatles were big with them. Funny thing is, I did listen to the Beatles when I was young (it was old music to me), but I just got worn out on them and found new stuff. I seem to have a near immunity to nostalgia, so not only do I not listen to them for old times’ sake or whatever, I actively avoid them (although that’s specific to the Beatles as I don’t avoid other bands I no longer listen to, but I couldn’t say why). Plus, Lennon was an asshole.
Sorry for the stupid question, but is Ms Sweeney a vegetarian?
I prefer people who are vegetarian.
And no, I don’t like imposing my preference on others.
I don’t know anything about her, I’ve only seen pics in regards to some jean commercial controversy that smelled like the kind of concocted rage nonsense media drives for clicks and distraction that I don’t care to know about.
She seems to love that kind of attention.
Would one prefer a wife like that? CLEARLY NOT.
I would rather prefer my wife keep to herself.
Which music critic has ever said that?
You’d be surprised. I don’t count a bunch of critics in their own day, who didn’t understand what they were listening to. Piero Scaruffi may be the most influential Beatle-hater, but “the Beatles are overrated” even showed up in the Washington Post not that long ago.
They’re all wrong, of course.
Well, as recent events have reminded us, everybody should be entitled to their opinion, even if that opinion is extremely wrong.
There was an entire episode of “Three’s Company” in 1977 written around a 1957 Chevy. The ending was somewhat ludicrous tho….
https://www.hemmings.com/stories/looking-back-at-when-a-classic-sitcom-tried-and-failed-to-blur-the-lines-between-a-57-and-58-chevy/
I saw a Nomad for the first time at a car show 2 years ago. Definitely one of the coolest looking cars I’ve ever seen in person.
Compared to the ’51-54 cars, the Tri-Fives were pretty snazzy. Ironically, when the 1977-90 full-sized Chevies debuted, there was a visual overlay comparing dimensions, etc., of the two cars. They were very similarly sized (the ’77s being a few inches longer and about an inch and a half lower than the ’57, yet considerably larger inside.
Absolutely with you 110%!
Honestly, I’ve always felt that the 1957 Ford Fairlane was a much better looking car overall.
Oh – I can’t say I agree w/ you.
The ’57 looks like it has Thyroid Eye Disease.
It deserved to wind up in the bottom of the pond in “Psycho”
The ’58 Fairlane appears so much better tho – and FAR better than the ’58 Chevy (especially the one Charlie Bodell drove in “Peggy Sue Got Married”)
(Of course James Garner drive his ’58 Impala into a pool in “The Thrill Of It All)
You know, I was born about the same time as Mattel marketing the first Hot Wheels cars, and I’ve lived this long without ever somehow getting their ’57 Chevy toy…even though my Dad actually OWNED a ’57 Chevy himself. (His actual favorite of that time period, that he owned, was a ’58 Olds Dynamic 88, known in our family as “Sugartop Mariah”.)
The diecast toys and the model kits always sold. Go to the Round2 website and they’ll have piles of ’57 Chevies in all scales and pricepoints.
I agree with this article 100%
Count me in, too. It may be irrational. I think it’s just hard to get excited over these cars because there’s not much rare or special about them.
So they were the 50 Miata. Nothing special and way to many of them.
I do like the Tri-Five Chevys, but only in Nomad form, with the ‘56 being my favorite and the ‘55 a close second. Were they revolutionary? Nope. Were they beautiful? That’s entirely subjective. Like I mentioned., I like the Nomad. I also really like the Volvo Duett, too, so there is that. As you surmise, their relative availability and low cost (once upon a time) combined with the fact that a lot of teens earned their wheels in one form of these or another, accounts for their enduring popularity.
I am frequently puzzled by the folks who rhapsodize over 80s and 90s GM sedans, but I suspect a lot of that love is for similar reasons that Boomers (I’m a ‘57 myself) embraced the Tri-Fives. Probably see Hawaiian shirts with 90s Buicks and Olds on them some day, too. Hopefully, after I’m dead.