Collector Car Corner; One very special ’55 Chevy and the infamous, short-lived Edsel

By Greg Zyla —

Revisiting the American Graffiti and Two-Lane Blacktop ’55 Chevys

Q: Greg, you did a column a long time ago on the “Two-Lane Blacktop” 1955 Chevy and that it was the same one featured in the hit film “American Graffiti.” Can you give us updated information? John May, Spokane, Washington.

A: Glad to, John, as I never tire of writing about this very interesting ’55 Chevy and the two movies I’ve always enjoyed watching.

“Two-Lane Blacktop,” released in 1971 and directed by Monte Hellman, is today a solid cult classic. It stars singing favorite James Taylor and the Beach Boys’ Dennis Wilson as the primary duo, along with unknown and “first timer” actress Laurie Bird. Bird was Art Garfunkel’s girlfriend at the time of her passing at just 25-years old (sadly, overdose of Valium). The final actor of note in Two-Lane is film veteran Warren Oates, known for his numerous excellent supporting roles and gritty performances.

These four actors deal with Two-Lane Blacktop’s underlying theme that centers on the nothingness of the foursome on a racing quest with Oates and his 1970 GTO from out west to Washington, DC, for “pink slips.”

“American Graffiti,” released in 1973, was the landmark Hollywood movie about life in the early sixties that became an instant box office smash. Directed by George Lucas and featuring wonderful music from the era, the film featured many soon-to-be megastars. Included were Richard Dreyfus, Harrison Ford, Suzanne Somers, Cindy Williams, and Ron Howard, the latter already a childhood star from his “Opie Taylor” days on “The Andy Griffith Show.” 

As for that good-looking black ’55 Chevy, a car builder by the name of Richard Ruth built three ’55 Chevys for the movie “Two-Lane Blacktop.” Ruth has a bit part in the movie as a gas station mechanic wearing a “Glendale Speed Shop” shirt when Taylor and Wilson arrive for fuel at a gas station.

Of the three Chevys in “Two-Lane,” one was used as a camera car for interior shots, of which there are many, while the second and third ’55 Chevys were utilized for racing, street, and highway scenes. The main “Two-Lane Blacktop” Chevy featured a 454 engine with aluminum heads, a tunnel ram intake, and dual Holley carburetors. The transmission was a rock crusher Muncie M-22 hooked to 4.88 gears. A straight axle and four-wheel disc brakes were also utilized. Lots of fiberglass was featured in the build, including sliding Plexiglass windows and, of course, the entire flip front end. One car was built for an ending rollover scene but never made the final cut.

Thanks to respected film producer Gary Kurtz, who was involved with both movies, the same “Two-Lane Blacktop” ’55 Chevy appeared in “American Graffiti.” Under Kurtz’s guidance, the primered ’55 from “Two-Lane” became a shiny black ’55 that Bob Falfa drove in “Graffiti” with Falfa’s actor, Harrison Ford, pulling the gears. They replaced the big hood scoop with a smaller one, added chrome wheels, put in different windows, and then added a hinged trunk instead of the lift-off. Kurtz is perhaps best known for producing Star Wars (1977) and The Empire Strikes Back (1980), which cemented his legacy in Hollywood.

There you have it, John; the ’55 Chevy is indeed the same vehicle with that powerful 454 under the hood. Thanks for your letter.

Edsel’s flop linked to gimmicks, name, and design

Q: Greg, I really liked your Ford Allegra and Chevy Cadet articles recently and wonder how you feel about the Edsel? It was a new car but failed miserably. What are your thoughts? I know it was “all new” according to Ford, but mechanically it was the same as a ’58 Ford or Mercury. — James G., Vestal, N.Y.

A: James, you are 100% correct about the Edsel, so first let’s separate the Chevy Cadet, Ford Allegro, and even the Chevy Corvair from the Edsel in one big way: the Allegro, Cadet, and Corvair were true innovations. The Corvair was the most innovative, featuring a rear mounted flat six-cylinder engine and transaxle and an all new, good-looking, compact car design.

The Edsel, meanwhile, was what you say it was, nothing more than gadgets and gimmicks with new skin on what was still basically the day-to-day Ford-Mercury chassis. Therefore, the Corvair will always be regarded in this column as an innovative car, while the Edsel a non-innovative vehicle.

Edsel hoped to sell America and the consumer via slick advertising campaigns and the “new” Edsel gimmicks, like push button transmission buttons in the center of the steering wheel and a rotary speedometer. The American consumer was not sold by the design and gadgets and saw right through the ad campaign what the Edsel really was. It was Ford’s Oldsmobile to be slotted between Mercury and Lincoln.

Still, there was so much hyped advertising about this car, and even an “Edsel TV Show,” you thought something “out of this world” was about to hit the dealer showrooms. When it appeared in late 1957 as a 1958 model, it was a bust from day one.

Another reason I feel Edsel failed was the name, Edsel. Now I know for sure that Edsel Ford, son of Henry Ford, was a great car person who I’ve written about before. However, the name just doesn’t have the “call power” like Lincoln-Mercury-Ford and its cars of the day, including Thunderbird, Continental, Fairlane, Marauder and so on. 

There were also many internal boardroom problems associated with the naming of the new car, and many at Ford did not want the Edsel name on it as he and his father never saw things eye-to-eye. The patriarch was slow to move on improving his cars while Edsel was a true auto progressive with great ideas for new cars. From a personal view and having studied Edsel’s life and written about him several times, the car they gave his name to in 1958 is indeed the actual reverse of what Edsel would have wanted if his name was on it.

Meanwhile at dealer showrooms, salespeople had to deal with a design that was “way out there,” thanks to an “in your face,” front end that would eventually be disliked by consumers. It featured a “scoop nose/grille”, also nicknamed as a “hangman’s noose” and “snorkel” front end that didn’t seem to match with the rest of the car. I feel the rear end was nice, with a styled trunk and rear taillight pattern. I owned a 1959 Edsel for about six years but got rid of it when I realized I had one car too many in my 20×40 pole barn garage.  

As for marketing, Edsel was sold initially by a new “Edsel only” division, which didn’t last long thanks to problems with the union followed by dealer complaints, too. The Edsel eventually ended up at the Lincoln-Mercury dealers in a move to raise the Lincoln brand awareness to that of Cadillac and Imperial status. Edsel would then compete for the Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Dodge, Desoto sale, but probably impacted its sibling Mercury more so than the competition it was aiming to take sales from. 

As sales dropped, so did Edsel’s “design ingenuity,” which relegated it to front end facelifts and rear taillight tweaks on what was a noticeable Ford body as it came to its last year in 1960. When all was said and done, the one thing Edsel achieved from all of this was being labeled as the worst car introduction and sales flop in motoring history.

Now, with all this said, when I see an Edsel nowadays at a car show, I’m one of the first to go and see it. Thus, the years prove that even a horrible flop like the Edsel has its day in the sun, which happens to be right now at collector car shows starting up everywhere, USA.

(Greg Zyla is a syndicated auto columnist who welcomes reader interaction at extramile_2000@yahoo.com or at greg@gregzyla.com.)