Notifications
Clear all
The Lounge
20
Posts
9
Users
66
Reactions
4,167
Views
Topic starter
16/12/2025 12:20 am
1960 METEOR RIDEAU (Canadian version of the '60 Ford)
I've never understood the reasoning for different versions of American cars in Canada. Who can enlighten me?
George Schire
Oakdale, Minnesota
16/12/2025 6:35 am
LSS George: Canadian content laws. To avoid taxes many products (from cars to music ) had to contain a certain percentage Canadian manufactured content. Also, there were inherent differences in consumer tastes.
Like you, I've always deemed MOST Canadian trim "goofy" or just strange looking. Often, it seemed that trim & ornamentation was "over-designed."
16/12/2025 7:03 am
How about the 1956 Meteor Rideau...
Speaking of flashy...
John Bono
North Jersey
16/12/2025 7:15 am
@sizedoesmatter A great example of "too much" John. And no, my eyes are not "jaded." This Canadian car looked like "too much" even back in '56. 😏
This post was modified 5 months ago by Christopher Moroni
16/12/2025 7:38 am
Chris, I tend to like flash and that was excessive even for me.@sizedoesmatter A great example of "too much" John. And no, my eyes are not "jaded." This Canadian car looked like "too much" even back in '56. 😏
John Bono
North Jersey
16/12/2025 8:41 am
Change just for the sake of change was not a good thing IMO.
16/12/2025 10:00 am
I have always understood that the Meteor was made to placate the Mercury dealers who had nothing in the same price range as the Ford. The Meteor was a decent looking car IMHO and the cosmetic changes were only a bit overdone looking on the '56 model side trim spear. I guess it's just what a person gets used to.
16/12/2025 10:30 am
I kinda like 'em. Something different I guess draws me to them.😊
Topic starter
16/12/2025 10:18 pm
OMG! Could a '61 car look any more put together "One Piece At A Time" than his '61 Meteor Montcalm? I've never been a fan of the '61 Ford styling, but after seeing this nightmare offered by Canadian dealers, the Ford is beautiful.
George Schire
Oakdale, Minnesota
Topic starter
17/12/2025 2:44 pm
If there was to be a 1961 Edsel, this could have been it.
The poor Edsel. Talk about a company that was clueless on how to debut and market a car, wow! They all but killed it before it was even introduced and for decades have put the blame on a recession year. Yes it was a recession year, but everyone else survived it, maybe not as in the black as they'd like to have been, but it all worked out. And to my eyes in '58 the Big Three had some real challenges in the styling department across the board. For what my opinion is worth, likely nothing more than a cup of coffee, the '58 Edsel was a beautiful and unique styled car for the times. As far as I'm concerned, Ford Motor Co. can claim to the hills that the Edsel was a mistake that year, but I've maintained "they killed it", NOT the public. The public's issue was that Ford belittled the Edsel and the public lost confidence in it.
George Schire
Oakdale, Minnesota
Geno and Christopher Moroni reacted
17/12/2025 3:02 pm
@georgeschire Hmm....
The classic explanation to explain Edsel's failure is, "The aim was good, but the target moved."
When Edsel was conceived, years earlier, consumer demand supported the "mid-to-high price field." The time was right to exploit that market. However, the economy dipped in '58, and suddenly "affordability & value" were paramount.
Edsel's styling was also a disappointment. Ford promised the "car of tomorrow." No one EVER perceived an Edsel quite that way.
The ONLY good thing Edsel accomplished was to create a lot of un-used manufacturing capacity which came in handy as Falcon sales rose in the early '60's.
Geno and Tony Perrone reacted
Topic starter
17/12/2025 6:35 pm
@georgeschire Hmm....
The classic explanation to explain Edsel's failure is, "The aim was good, but the target moved."
When Edsel was conceived, years earlier, consumer demand supported the "mid-to-high price field." The time was right to exploit that market. However, the economy dipped in '58, and suddenly "affordability & value" were paramount.
Edsel's styling was also a disappointment. Ford promised the "car of tomorrow." No one EVER perceived an Edsel quite that way.
The ONLY good thing Edsel accomplished was to create a lot of un-used manufacturing capacity which came in handy as Falcon sales rose in the early '60's.
Everything you say above, I've heard over the decades. However, I'll forever believe that Ford Motor Co. was guilty of pushing the panic button too early. The '58 was barely out and they were implying to the public that it was a mistake.
As for the styling, I will totally disagree that is was a disappointment! What was disappointing was that the company itself wasn't able to respond favorably to the reaction to the car. In fact they took offense at it. Of the Big Three brands, I think the Edsel was no more bad styling than any other car that rolled off the assembly lines that year.
And the reason the boast of it being the "car of tomorrow" and the public "perceiving it that way" was because Ford didn't hold their ground that it was a NEW and exciting car. As for the "aim being good, but the target moving", the target didn't move, it was Ford's panic and they missed the target because of it.
We can disagree on this, but after all the decades of clunkers and oddly styled cars, the Edsel certainly was NOT the worst of the lot to receive the fate it did.
George Schire
Oakdale, Minnesota
17/12/2025 9:22 pm
The Edsel was a victim of the "Dream Team," Robert McNamara and his group, who initiated the rise of the bean counters in Detroit. Believing that substantial savings could be achieved by consolidating all product lines into a single broad Ford offering that would support fewer dealers and save millions in advertising, McNamara sought to discontinue production of Mercury and Lincoln. He opposed Edsel from its outset. He wanted to kill it before it was introduced and took every opportunity to telegraph that idea. He was almost successful in closing down Lincoln. He was the major force behind reintegrating the Mercury line onto Ford bodies and chassis. The only factor that saved those two brands was the dealer network and the problems associated with terminating long-standing dealer agreements. The dealer fought furiously. But the recession gave McNamara all the excuse he needed to kill Edsel. It did not help that Edsels were an afterthought on the Ford and Mercury assembly lines, a money-saving notion championed by McNamara. The other struggle for Edsel was pricing. Edsel was supposed to fit into a market niche. It was going to be an upscale, high-tech offering, positioned below Lincoln but slightly above Mercury. However, when the pricing was announced, the cheapest Edsels rivaled Ford prices, and the most expensive ones were priced very near Mercury prices. Buyers weren't quite sure where these new cars were supposed to fit.
All in all, Edsel was doomed as soon as McNamara and his cronies rose to power. But don't discount the recession. It was a significant factor. We lost Packard, and the consolidation that became American Motors began the decline for Studebaker, Hudson, and others. The recession was also a contributor to DeSoto's eventual demise. If you look at the market in those days, a consolidation was inevitable. There were too many cars being made on too few platforms. The distinction between nameplates was getting more blurred each year. Something had to give. A downturn in the economy catalyzed the slide.
Not having learned their lesson, our domestic manufacturers repeated this in the mid-seventies and throughout the eighties. All you had to do was walk the lots in the early nineties and see that the things that distinguished the various GM nameplates were slowly being homogenized. The same thing was happening at Ford and Chrysler. Again, something had to give, and we lost nameplates.
This post was modified 5 months ago 2 times by John Kuvakas
John Kuvakas
Warrenton, VA
David Green and Geno reacted
Page 1 / 2
Next