For those that complain about the dial shifter...

[Darryl]

I intended to look up the Edsel yesterday when I was reading this post. The push button shifter in the center on the steering column first appeared in 1958. It was not electric as I remember but had cables that push the lever on the trans. That was many moons ago, so feel free to correct me if I remeber it wrong. I think there was a Chrysler that had shift in the column. (?)

The shift was electric. That was part of the problem. My dad said the shift motor would stick. I read that it was because it was not protected from the elements. Dirt and mud would cause it to eventually stick

Sponsored

 

[Cherokee]

I can understand having problems if you confuse right and left. That's an issue I didn't consider that people may have. The selections are in the same order as they've pretty much always been left to right (as you move an automatic column shift up and down), so I figured everyone was used to that.

I don't look at the PRNDL or the dial at all when I'm shifting. I can select the correct gear with a blindfold on. But, I suppose I shouldn't expect that everyone can.

Blindfold on in the Mav is easy.
A spin to the left is park, one to the right is reverse then neutral.
A spin to the right is D

I don’t think I look down at it much.

 

[jonshep]

The shift was electric. That was part of the problem. My dad said the shift motor would stick. I read that it was because it was not protected from the elements. Dirt and mud would cause it to eventually stick

I believe you. It has been a long time since I have seen an Edsel. My Uncle bought one in the early 70's. I think his was a 1960. I mostly rememder that it was fugly looking.

 

[Darryl]

I believe you. It has been a long time since I have seen an Edsel. My Uncle bought one in the early 70's. I think his was a 1960. I mostly rememder that it was fugly looking.

In my opinion, the Edsel was unique but not ugly. But I do see why others consider it ugly. Since it's basically an upgraded Ford, I think it would have been less of a failure if it had just been offered as a trim level of the Ford or Mercury. A Ford with a "luxury" grille, upgraded engine, and different tail lights. Then add the funky shifter and other features. It still wouldn't have sold that well. But it wouldn't have needed to as a trim level toman existing vehicle. Because Truth be told it was essentially an upgraded Ford. Custom,Fairlane, Galaxy, and Edsel could have been the trim levels.

 

[Blue_Max]

In my opinion, the Edsel was unique but not ugly. But I do see why others consider it ugly. Since it's basically an upgraded Ford, I think it would have been less of a failure if it had just been offered as a trim level of the Ford or Mercury. A Ford with a "luxury" grille, upgraded engine, and different tail lights. Then add the funky shifter and other features. It still wouldn't have sold that well. But it wouldn't have needed to as a trim level toman existing vehicle. Because Truth be told it was essentially an upgraded Ford. Custom,Fairlane, Galaxy, and Edsel could have been the trim levels.

Edsel had a lot of factors working against it. The name was a problem--people thought it was stupid. Even the Ford family didn't want to name it that.
There was a mini-recession in 1958 that hurt auto sales across the board. Debuting a new division in a recession did not help sales. It actually had respectable sales the first year.
Edsel was inserted into a very crowded medium-price market. It was a car nobody was looking for.
Pricing was a problem, as was the fact that the range was built on both Ford and Mercury chassis. some of the prices dipped into Ford territory, and others soared into Mercury territory. The different divisions were set up to fight amongst themselves.
Production was on the same lines as Fords and Mercurys. In addition to creating confusion for workers, it was annoying extra work. So quality wasn't so good.
Robert S. McNamara never liked the idea of adding a division, and was looking for excuses to kill it from its inception. He had already gotten rid of the costly two-year-only Continental division.
The styling was controversial, as everyone knows.
There were marketing mishaps as well. There was a wild promotion where kids could win a "pony," tied in with the Wagon Train (I think) TV show. It was a pretty irresponsible promotion, and to make matters worse, some young horses (rather than ponies) were sneaked into the mix, adding complications for winners.
Anyway, there's no single reason Edsel failed. But the deck was definitely stacked against its success.

 

[Darryl]

Edsel had a lot of factors working against it. The name was a problem--people thought it was stupid. Even the Ford family didn't want to name it that.
There was a mini-recession in 1958 that hurt auto sales across the board. Debuting a new division in a recession did not help sales. It actually had respectable sales the first year.
Edsel was inserted into a very crowded medium-price market. It was a car nobody was looking for.
Pricing was a problem, as was the fact that the range was built on both Ford and Mercury chassis. some of the prices dipped into Ford territory, and others soared into Mercury territory. The different divisions were set up to fight amongst themselves.
Production was on the same lines as Fords and Mercurys. In addition to creating confusion for workers, it was annoying extra work. So quality wasn't so good.
Robert S. McNamara never liked the idea of adding a division, and was looking for excuses to kill it from its inception. He had already gotten rid of the costly two-year-only Continental division.
The styling was controversial, as everyone knows.
There were marketing mishaps as well. There was a wild promotion where kids could win a "pony," tied in with the Wagon Train (I think) TV show. It was a pretty irresponsible promotion, and to make matters worse, some young horses (rather than ponies) were sneaked into the mix, adding complications for winners.
Anyway, there's no single reason Edsel failed. But the deck was definitely stacked against its success.

I think it was also a case of over hype. Customers were expecting something more revolutionary. But it was essentially an upscale Ford. As you said, attempting to create an entirely new division was overly ambitious to say the least. It's tragic that the attempt to honor the memory of Henry Ford's son turned into a name synonymous with epic Failure. If I was a member of the Ford family, that would be more hurtful and disappointing than the actual money lost and the failure of the car itself . If it had been simply a trim level even if it wasn't successful in this application, the name could have been used later and across product lines much like the labels Deluxe, Limited, Brougham , etc.

 

[MaverickDragon]

In my opinion, the Edsel was unique but not ugly. But I do see why others consider it ugly.

For anyone who remembers the Simpsons episode where Homer designed a car (that bankrupted his long lost successful brother who built it) the "Homer" as it was called, reminded me of the Edsel.
I think at least it was the inspiration for that episode...
Too much style, named after a family member, etc.

 

[MaverickDragon]

I never in many years had my stick shifter bumped in to neutral, but the dial has been bumped several times, I dunno if it's bad luck

Not bad luck.
It takes considerably more force to push a shifter than to spin the dial, and it's a lot more obvious that neutral was selected via the large vertical object that makes noise when it moves.

On the other hand, if your dog jumps into the front seat, it might be more likely for the canine to push the shifter than to spin the dial.

Just had a thought, what if you needed to press down on the gear selector before it could turn.
Requiring multiple actions in series is a common method for accidental device engagement...

 

[mikellmikell]

Let me see I'm stuck in the snow.
1- Shut off traction control.
2- Put in trailering mode.
3- Attempt to rock back and forth with the dial is a pain I imagine buttons will be just as bad.
It works for me.

 

[Phimosis]

For those that complain about the dial shifter... I present to you the 2024 GMC Terrain- What a nightmare design.

Gross.
This is the shifter for a ‘24 Blazer. Both are midsized crossover SUV’s from GM, same model year, but they are 2 decades apart in design language.

 

[Glen Baker LLC]

Gross.
This is the shifter for a ‘24 Blazer. Both are midsized crossover SUV’s from GM, same model year, but they are 2 decades apart in design language.

Now that I can see hitting by accident with my big hands. Sometimes I hit the windshield wiper control on my Maverick.

 

[Blue_Max]

I'm forming a distinct impression that any design or placement of a shifter will inspire complaints.

 

[Glen Baker LLC]

I'm forming a distinct impression that any design or placement of a shifter will inspire complaints.

I don't mind the Mavericks dial.
The GMC's is up out of the way nothing can be spilled on it. It can't be accidentally bumped by a dog, purse, leg....etc.
It seems the only complaint about the 2024 GMC terrain is that it's ugly.

 

[Blue_Max]

I don't mind the Mavericks dial.
The GMC's is up out of the way nothing can be spilled on it. It can't be accidentally bumped by a dog, purse, leg....etc.
It seems the only complaint about the 2024 GMC terrain is that it's ugly.

You don't mind the Maverick's dial. Multiple topics in this forum indicate that others mind it very much. It is not accommodating for those who like to wrap a phone cord around it and use their phone while driving, or for people who let dogs run around unrestrained while they're driving. And there are other offenses.

 

[Fpr]

Sigh, I'm so old...I'm not the biggest fan of the dial shifter in my 25 Maverick, but then again, my favorite shifter is the short throw narrow gate upgraded CTR 6 speed in my 2020 si. As a benefit, it's the best anti theft device there is.

Sponsored