12 Worst Cars of the 1950s That Only Poor People Could Afford

12 Worst Cars of the 1950s That Only Poor People Could Afford
________________________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer
Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing."
I do NOT own some or all of the video materials used in this video. In the case of copyright issues, please contact me at [e-mail] for credit/removal.

[@rayfridley6649]

@16:26-Thats not a '57 Plymouth Fury! It is a '61 Fury. Quite a difference!

[@saikumarkhan]

have a nice day bro 🖐️🖐️🙂🙂

[@honestone490]

33:23 The 1958 Studebaker Golden Hawk is a beautiful car. The fins I could definitely do without. If this same body design had been built lighter weight to accommodate instead a less expensive smaller V8 it would've been much more successful This way it could've been priced at around $2800 instead of $4000 making it more affordable for the average consumer Targeting a single status car buyer who was seeking a car that looked more upscale European in design but priced more like a mid-sized priced sporty domestic.

[@michaelcoonce6694]

If those are the worst I will take them every time

[@DavidHendricks-c6g]

the '57 skylinewas not the first retractable hardtop convertable, there was an american independent named The Playboy madw in '47 and the original a late '30's Peugeot . Wbile Ford claimed to originate the hard top convertible, they were 10 years behind the domestic market and 20 years behind the European market. Corporate hubris at it's worst.

[@dondesnoo1771]

The stude 289 was a stude engine sometimes supercharged. The Packard engine was not supercharged 350+ cui. And HEAVY in the 56 hawk w ultramatic the 289 w charger was faster specially in the larks

[@hollertrotter]

Sorry rich people, only the poor can afford these cars.