China Motors vs. 1957 Chevrolets

[trimacar]

Just read a thread about GM becoming China Motors. Interesting.

But, here's my favorite, and it explains why there are so may 1957 Chevrolet's that still exist...they kept making them until the mid 1960's!!!

snopes.com: 1957 Chevies Produced Until 1967

[NTX5467]

GM has deeply invested in China, since the 1990s. Both in vehicle plants and also using local tooling vendors. Remember, too, that any "global" company doing business in China also has to have a "local partner", as many other foreign countries do. One "sticking point" about USA companies building some vehicles with "particular technologies" in them in China, for "trademark/copyright infringement" concerns, or even "intellectual property" concerns.

Buicks were GM's "export vehicle" for many decades in the last century. Buicks are still VERY popular in China, now. Go into the GM-China website and you'll see mention of "luxury fit for aristocracy" (paraphrasing). Some of the current USA models are built in China, but with some engineering (smaller engines, different chassis calibrations, etc.) alterations for the "local market" in China.

If you get a copy of "Street Rodder" magazine, you'll find ads for new, steel, USA-built bodies for '55 and '57 Chevy cars . . . plus the several vendors of new body parts (and bodies) for '32 Fords . . . not to forget probably more speed equipment for new Ford Flathead V-8s than there was when they were then-new.

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

[john2dameron]

David, go back and re-read the snopes article on '57 Chevies being built for an additional 10 years. The first they say at the top of the article is "False." Then they reprint the article that claims they were built throughout that period of time and then they tell why it is not true. As for now, it was true a year of so ago that someone was rebuilding bodies in the '57 convertible style. I don't know if the operation is still going on or not.

[Dave@Moon]

If you want to know why there are so many 1957 Chevys in existence today relative to their contemporary competitors, all you have to do is read the April (annual automotive) issues of Consumer Reports from 1958-1963. I doubt if there was ever a domestic car that outperformed it's contemporaries in terms of reliability and durability better than the 1957 Chevy did. It was as a used car that the '57 Chevy became the icon that it is. For years you just couldn't beat it as a "best buy" in the used car market.:cool:

Edited January 31, 2013 by Dave@Moon
3 BAD typos! (see edit history)

[trimacar]

Post was tongue in cheek, I know they weren't really building '57 Chevy's that long. And yes, you can buy a "new" '57 Chevy, '67 Mustang, early '30's Fords......

Any company doing business in China has to first give China the technology, or intellectual property, as mentioned. That's a scary thing to do......

[Guest Magoo]

Love the '55 and '56, never had the same affection for the '57. For one thing it was a rush job and the sheet metal is out of whack. Story about how that came to be:

The 1957 Chevrolet — the car that wasn’t supposed to be | Mac's Motor City Garage

[TG57Roadmaster]

If you want to read about American Iron produced for decades after their U.S. model runs, pick up any copy of World Cars from the '70's-'80's. Published annually by the Automobile Club of Italy, it's a comprehensive compilation of autos made everywhere in the world, even the Communist countries. In its pages, you'll see that the 1966 Ford Galaxie sedan continued to be made by Ford of Brazil until at least 1981 (with minor facelifts). Long-run models made there and in Argentina were, among others, the '64 Rambler American 2drht, the '68 Chevy Nova sedan and the '67 Dodge Dart 2drht, either by the foreign arms of U.S. firms or from original dies sold to other companies.

Not an uncommon practice, but at least you'll be learning something grounded in fact.

TG

Edited January 31, 2013 by TG57Roadmaster (see edit history)

[supersix]

Love the '55 and '56, never had the same affection for the '57. For one thing it was a rush job and the sheet metal is out of whack. Story about how that came to be:

The 1957 Chevrolet — the car that wasn’t supposed to be | Mac's Motor City Garage

That link sounds like the start of another "urban legend".

[Guest Magoo]

That link sounds like the start of another "urban legend".

Really? How so?

[supersix]

Really? How so?

I think the writer is adding some opinion to make a story. The way it starts out doesn't make sense. As quoted, "In the original GM product plan, Chevrolet was supposed to get an all-new vehicle for 1958, something like the car that eventually appeared as the ’58 Chevrolet. However, circumstances pushed that car back one year and the decision was made to facelift the ’55-’56 shell for one more annual build cycle." They DID get an all new vehicle for '58. And '59. Nothing anywhere about an all-new vehicle for '57. I don't know what consitutes a "rush job". What was the normal lead-time? How many other cars are then "rush jobs"?

The sheet metal is not "out-of-whack". I've seen some with rear bumper-taillight misalignment, and some not. It's hard to say at this point what they looked like from the factory. Probably hard to find an original with sheetmetal that has not been disturbed in 56 years. Mine is certainly not misaligned, but mine has been apart and back together. I don't know what the writer is referring to concerning the quarter panels and headlight buckets (as compared to other cars).

I've restored many cars in the past 35 years and the panel fit on a '57 Chevy is no different than any other mass-produced car of that vintage.

[Guest Magoo]

I think the writer is adding some opinion to make a story. The way it starts out doesn't make sense. As quoted, "In the original GM product plan, Chevrolet was supposed to get an all-new vehicle for 1958, something like the car that eventually appeared as the ’58 Chevrolet. However, circumstances pushed that car back one year and the decision was made to facelift the ’55-’56 shell for one more annual build cycle." They DID get an all new vehicle for '58. And '59. Nothing anywhere about an all-new vehicle for '57. I don't know what consitutes a "rush job". What was the normal lead-time? How many other cars are then "rush jobs"?

The sheet metal is not "out-of-whack". I've seen some with rear bumper-taillight misalignment, and some not. It's hard to say at this point what they looked like from the factory. Probably hard to find an original with sheetmetal that has not been disturbed in 56 years. Mine is certainly not misaligned, but mine has been apart and back together. I don't know what the writer is referring to concerning the quarter panels and headlight buckets (as compared to other cars).

I've restored many cars in the past 35 years and the panel fit on a '57 Chevy is no different than any other mass-produced car of that vintage.

Sorry, typo. That sentence should have read, "In the original GM product plan, Chevrolet was supposed to get an all-new vehicle for 1957,..."

Otherwise, the piece is correct as written. The story is just as it was related to me by GM veterans who were there at the time.

[supersix]

Sorry, typo. That sentence should have read, "In the original GM product plan, Chevrolet was supposed to get an all-new vehicle for 1957,..."

Otherwise, the piece is correct as written. The story is just as it was related to me by GM veterans who were there at the time.

Then I guess we agree to disagree. I still stand by my comments.

[Dave@Moon]

I've read many times that the 1957 Chevy was a rush design to extend the body for one more year, however I disagree with the author's assertion that the '57's fit and finish was not up to par. Perhaps it wasn't as good as the '55 & '56, but compared to the teething problems for '57 Plymouths and Fords the Chevys' issues were small potatoes. I've never seen anyone assert that the fit and finish of a 1957 Chevy was worse than that on Fords and Plymouths of the same year.

I'm barely old enough to remember these cars on the road, but even as a small child I can remember that the 1957 Chevys were around a lot longer than the Fords & Plymouths. I knew 2 people in high school who drove 1957 Chevys. The oldest Ford I can remember from that time (1974-76, in rust-belt Pittsburgh) was a 1964 Custom (stripped full-size model), and the oldest Plymouth was a 1965 Valiant. The old Consumer Reports articles I read years later are consistent with those observations.

[Bleach]

I can remember '57 Chevys on the road and really the only thing I recall was that often I would see a tail light housing out of alignment with the rear bumper. Everything else I recall seemed fine. These cars were very popular in SoCal. There were lots of them around. It wasn't unusual to see them as daily drivers well into the 80's. There was one that used a daily driver in the town I lived in that was still being used in 1998, the year I left CA for good. It was a 150 model and still in good shape.

[Guest Magoo]

Then I guess we agree to disagree. I still stand by my comments.

Indeed, opinions vary. A healthy variety of views makes the world go around. Now look at this. Once you have had to straighten this out, for the rest of your days, every time you see a '57 Chevrolet your eyeball will go directly to the left rear quarter, lamp, and bumper.

For more fun, back up about 50 feet directly in front of the vehicle and then look at the headlamps.

[john2dameron]

I believe the media had more to do with the popularity of the '57 Chevrolets than GM did. I still don't understand adorning the side of a car with a bent leaf rake and I sure can't see using the mouth of a hungry shark for a grille, not to even mention those hideous dual windsplits on the hood. No other Chevrolet of the '50's looks so gross.

[rhb1999]

It should be remembered also that Chevrolet got a new engine for '57, the 283 a very good engine 185 hp with a two barrel 220 with a 4 and up to 270? with the Ramjet fuel injection. It was made for ten years, by '67 it had a 195 hp with a two barrel. I understand Ford outsold Chevrolet that year , but the Fords that year had valve train problems. I know this because my father in law said he bought one new.

Edited January 31, 2013 by rhb1999 (see edit history)

[The Continental]

200,000? I might have believed it if it said 1,000.

[rhb1999]

Love the '55 and '56

I always thought the '55 looked better than the '56. When the '55 model was shown, the automotive press at the time accused Chevrolet of stealing the idea for the grille from Ferrari, hence the reason for the more conventional grille appearing on the '56.

[junkyardjeff]

There must be some truth to it as everyone I known who had a 57 had issues with getting body parts aligned.

[Guest Magoo]

It should be remembered also that Chevrolet got a new engine for '57, the 283 a very good engine 185 hp with a two barrel 220 with a 4 and up to 270? with the Ramjet fuel injection. It was made for ten years, by '67 it had a 195 hp with a two barrel. I understand Ford outsold Chevrolet that year , but the Fords that year had valve train problems. I know this because my father in law said he bought one new.

In no way do I suggest that the 1957 Chevrolet doesn't have a number of great qualities. As you say, the car featured some great drivetrain combinations (Turboglide notwithstanding) and the car's popularity among enthusiasts only seems to grow each year.

I'm saying one thing: that the car has some sheet metal problems due to its short lead time. As the photos in the story illustrate, the car was in clay on Sept.1, 1955 and was on the assembly line a year later. On a purely subjective note, I will add that I find the car's styling inferior to the 1955 and 1956 models, but I know I am in the minority on that point.

All cars, especially volume production cars that must be built to a price, have their strong and weak points and obvious flaws. That's part of the appeal of automotive history. It wouldn't be very interesting if we pretended that everything was perfect in every way.

[Bleach]

In no way do I suggest that the 1957 Chevrolet doesn't have a number of great qualities. As you say, the car featured some great drivetrain combinations (Turboglide notwithstanding) and the car's popularity among enthusiasts only seems to grow each year.

I'm saying one thing: that the car has some sheet metal problems due to its short lead time. As the photos in the story illustrate, the car was in clay on Sept.1, 1955 and was on the assembly line a year later. On a purely subjective note, I will add that I find the car's styling inferior to the 1955 and 1956 models, but I know I am in the minority on that point.

All cars, especially volume production cars that must be built to a price, have their strong and weak points and obvious flaws. That's part of the appeal of automotive history. It wouldn't be very interesting if we pretended that everything was perfect in every way.

Well they did think that way about the Trabant. It remained relatively unchanged for nearly 30 years and, believe it or not, had an average life span of nearly 30 years as well.

Hurried or not, I think the '57 Chevy was a very nicely styled car. I'm sure Cadillac's styling had some influence on the '57 Chevy. It bears some resemblance, though remote, to a '54 Cadillac, especially to the hooded headlight buckets. The fins are another story but they do work on the car.

The photos may have 9-1-55 on them but were they actually taken then? I'm sure the '57 was on the drawing board much earlier than that.