File 01 of 51, Ford Popular 1958 fl3q.JPG (1/2) - 400 Kbytes

Solid axles, transverse leaf springs, flathead engine, separate headlights,
all all of it in 1958. You have to wonder if it had hydraulic brakes. I'm
amazed that people weren't ashamed to be seen in something like this.

Max

"André Ritzinger" > wrote in message
ll.nl...

In article >, Max Magister
> writes
>
>Max
>
>"André Ritzinger" > wrote in message
all.nl...
>
>
>Solid axles, transverse leaf springs, flathead engine, separate headlights,
>all all of it in 1958. You have to wonder if it had hydraulic brakes.

It didn't.

> I'm
>amazed that people weren't ashamed to be seen in something like this.

First cost and low running costs were the key; the Popular was priced at
£399 when launched in 1953, making it the cheapest new car on the
British market, compared to £511 for the new 100E Anglia, or £475 for an
Austin A30. Performance was lively enough and equal to that of its
competition, and its well-proven mechanicals meant that it would be
cheap and simple to maintain. So what if it was pretty much a mid-30s
design, and very basic in its trim and equipment, or that it tended to
wander about a bit on straight roads, or that its ride was what was
euphemistically referred to in a contemporary road test as being
"vintage" in character? It was an affordable new car at a time of
austerity, and when a new car of any kind was still quite difficult to
obtain.
--
Regards

Leroy Curtis

Please replace "nospam" with "baram" in my address if you wish to
reply by Email

Yes, you're right, of course. I'd forgotten about the post war austerity
but surely by 1958 there was some glimmer of economic hope on the horizon.
But I suppose that this was no worse than all those bubble cars that flooded
the entry-level new car market.

TonyO

"Leroy Curtis" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Max Magister
> > writes
>>
>>Max
>>
>>"André Ritzinger" > wrote in message
4all.nl...
>>
>>
>>Solid axles, transverse leaf springs, flathead engine, separate
>>headlights,
>>all all of it in 1958. You have to wonder if it had hydraulic brakes.
>
> It didn't.
>
>> I'm
>>amazed that people weren't ashamed to be seen in something like this.
>
> First cost and low running costs were the key; the Popular was priced at
> £399 when launched in 1953, making it the cheapest new car on the British
> market, compared to £511 for the new 100E Anglia, or £475 for an Austin
> A30. Performance was lively enough and equal to that of its competition,
> and its well-proven mechanicals meant that it would be cheap and simple to
> maintain. So what if it was pretty much a mid-30s design, and very basic
> in its trim and equipment, or that it tended to wander about a bit on
> straight roads, or that its ride was what was euphemistically referred to
> in a contemporary road test as being "vintage" in character? It was an
> affordable new car at a time of austerity, and when a new car of any kind
> was still quite difficult to obtain.
> --
> Regards
>
> Leroy Curtis
>
> Please replace "nospam" with "baram" in my address if you wish to
> reply by Email
>

Yes, you're right, of course. I'd forgotten about the post war austerity
but surely by 1958 there was some glimmer of economic hope on the horizon.
But I suppose that this was no worse than all those bubble cars that flooded
the entry-level new car market.

TonyO

"Leroy Curtis" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Max Magister
> > writes
>>
>>Max
>>
>>"André Ritzinger" > wrote in message
4all.nl...
>>
>>
>>Solid axles, transverse leaf springs, flathead engine, separate
>>headlights,
>>all all of it in 1958. You have to wonder if it had hydraulic brakes.
>
> It didn't.
>
>> I'm
>>amazed that people weren't ashamed to be seen in something like this.
>
> First cost and low running costs were the key; the Popular was priced at
> £399 when launched in 1953, making it the cheapest new car on the British
> market, compared to £511 for the new 100E Anglia, or £475 for an Austin
> A30. Performance was lively enough and equal to that of its competition,
> and its well-proven mechanicals meant that it would be cheap and simple to
> maintain. So what if it was pretty much a mid-30s design, and very basic
> in its trim and equipment, or that it tended to wander about a bit on
> straight roads, or that its ride was what was euphemistically referred to
> in a contemporary road test as being "vintage" in character? It was an
> affordable new car at a time of austerity, and when a new car of any kind
> was still quite difficult to obtain.
> --
> Regards
>
> Leroy Curtis
>
> Please replace "nospam" with "baram" in my address if you wish to
> reply by Email
>

In article >, Max Magister
> writes
>
>"Leroy Curtis" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, Max Magister
>> > writes
>>>

>>>"André Ritzinger" > wrote in message
s4all.nl...
>>>
>>>
>>>Solid axles, transverse leaf springs, flathead engine, separate
>>>headlights,
>>>all all of it in 1958. You have to wonder if it had hydraulic brakes.
>>
>> It didn't.
>>
>>> I'm
>>>amazed that people weren't ashamed to be seen in something like this.
>>
>> First cost and low running costs were the key; the Popular was priced at
>> £399 when launched in 1953, making it the cheapest new car on the British
>> market, compared to £511 for the new 100E Anglia, or £475 for an Austin
>> A30. Performance was lively enough and equal to that of its competition,
>> and its well-proven mechanicals meant that it would be cheap and simple to
>> maintain. So what if it was pretty much a mid-30s design, and very basic
>> in its trim and equipment, or that it tended to wander about a bit on
>> straight roads, or that its ride was what was euphemistically referred to
>> in a contemporary road test as being "vintage" in character? It was an
>> affordable new car at a time of austerity, and when a new car of any kind
>> was still quite difficult to obtain.
>>
>Yes, you're right, of course. I'd forgotten about the post war austerity
>but surely by 1958 there was some glimmer of economic hope on the horizon.
>But I suppose that this was no worse than all those bubble cars that flooded
>the entry-level new car market.
>> --
It's fair to say that by 1958 the world had moved on a bit from the
austerity of the immediate post-war years, and the 103E was in fact in
its last year of production; in 1959 the 100E Anglia would be replaced
by the modern 105E, and the Popular would take on a 100E guise. But
there was, even in 1958, a market for the cheap, no-frills 103E.dated as
it was. The lure of a brand new car is always strong, especially if it's
going to be your first brand new car.. The bubble cars were really a
solution to a different problem; as three-wheelers they offered cheap
road tax, and the fear of petrol shortages after the Suez crisis of 1956
had made a car which offered extremely low fuel consumption desirable.
The Popular was not especially miserly of fuel compared to its
contemporaries, but its overall running costs were low, and as a Ford,
it was known quantity with a decent resale value.
--
Regards

Leroy Curtis

Please replace "nospam" with "baram" in my address if you wish to
reply by Email