One thing GM DID have starting 1952 was superior rust resistance compared to Ford and Chrysler. Kind of ironic, as prior to 52, Chrysler products were almost rust proof. The Korean War stopped them from getting that High Chrome Content steel that they had always used. They could only get "regular" steel, and they never went back to the good stuff.
Thanks for sharing. My mom's family bought a 1957 Chevrolet. They had a Nomad yellow with white top. They didn't have it very long, as there were 6 kids, and another 5 on the way by 1964. It's transmission went bad and my grandfather went to a Cadillac, he bought a 1959 Ranchero for his company.
It is beyond my mind how could the 55 (56 and 57 too) Chevy be so successful in terms of sales when new. The frame without cross members literally surprised me (like, how does it even hold up?). Ford did a great job styling wise (indeed if I were in Fall 1954 and had to buy a new car from those three brands I'd likely get a Crown Vic, with that lowered roofline 😍) Plymouth was all new and it showed, only the rooflines of the hardtops in 1955 and 56 were a bit of a letdown for how stubby they were. The 4 door pillared sedan looked awesome, on the other hand.
GM had the biggest marketshare and customers were loyal back then... Of the 55 v8 cars. Chevy had 50%, Ford 40% and Plymouth 10%... But Ford charged a higher prices so Ford probably made the same revenue with the 10% lower sales. Also Ford had less brands... Chrysler and GM had diluted "low" tier brands due to so many brands up the chain... Dodge/Pontiac had good sized sales which ate into Plymouth/Chevy. Yeah no cross member is kind of shocking...
I guess this video proves that styling was the most important thing in selling cars in 1955... according to this video the worst built car, the Chevy, became the biggest seller and an icon on the mid-fifties, while the best built, the Plymouth is hardly ever seen today.... of course 1955 being the first year of the Chevy small block V8 probably had a lot to do with its legacy
Chevy sold the most every year except 1957... Chrysler stole so much market share off GM it allowed Ford to take the sales lead. But sales don't equal quality :) And this is the advantages from Chrysler stand point... I'm sure GM would have had some points itself... But its still interesting to see they actually tore each others cars down and GM maybe needed a cross brace? or were they over kill? And those Plymouth seats did look nice.
Most of the big 3 were building cars to last 2-3 years... Chrysler had a serious rocker issue in 55-59... they started full dipping the cars in 60 with the unibody... The damage had been done already... Their holes were too small and often got clogged up and poof GONE nearly instantly. GM kept pushing the "air flow dry" rockers just to keep digging at this sore spot at Chrysler and Ford. Everyones rockers were rusting... it took them a long time to fix with plastic rockers but it was absurd, almost like the car makers wanted the rockers to rust out :)
Not sure about the 50s, but 60s era A and B body mopars would lose their ride quality at around 80k miles. Sloppy steering, serious body lean and banging bumps. I ought to know I have owned and driven enough of them. The drive trains were good though. Ford and GM intermediates maintained their ride quality.
yeah i think all cars were expected to be in the junkyard around that time... 12 month warrantys... The rubber involved was probably the issue as it was probably just regular rubber... I know every car ive restored the suspension rubber is all shot :)
@@autochronicles8667 You could get over 200k miles out of a well maintained car back then. Usually the first thing to fail were the cork and paper gaskets used as they begin to leak and seep oils. But those gaskets were the technology back then. Once they began leaking people would fail to have them replaced then they would be driving on low trans fluid and eng. oils much of the time causing other real issues later. I ran all my cars well past 100k miles as most in my family. Never had an eng. failure. My brother had his 65 Galaxie 500 trans rebuilt once with over 100k miles. My mother had her 65' Barracuda Trans rebuilt once way past 100k. My father was strictly big Oldsmobiles like 98s, I don't think he had any rebuilds. I sold my 69 Ply Road Runner with almost 140k miles and could still stomp it and burn rubber for 10' with G60x14s on the rear, but the car handled and drove like shit at that time. My brother Galaxie was well over 100k miles when he sold it but still drove nice even with wide rear tires and airshocks jacked up. My fathers Oldsmobiles never lost their ride.
Yet today a 55 Chevy brings a hell of a lot more money and was even more popular in 55' than Ford or Plymouth. Plymouth had styling issues until the late 60s.
Chevy being the biggest brand, more survived I think and obviously being the cars that people grew up with, they are more desirable... There were certainly more "Chevy" guys than Plymouth guys out there :) that help and obviously a whole host of factors... People don't even know what a 55 Plymouth is when they see one. And the late 50's mopars are certainly catching up and mainly due to they are simply super rare. Those late 50s Forward Look convertible cars fetch huge numbers.
Wow, the Chevy's frame had no cross members? Almost as bad as the later X member frame with no side rails. Never used to think about this before, but later realized that it was very unsafe, which is a shame. The 54 and older Chevy's were very good as far as frame rigidity. I guess that's why the Japanese were able to sell the most unsafe cars of all - "stupid Americans don't care about safety, so why should we?"
I did find that kind of a shock, I guess for standard driving it was okay, i bet the guys racing were putting cross members in... and they always pointed out the shocks were mounted to the body... that had to be bad
@@autochronicles8667 I sure would think so. Shocks can freeze up. If they are mounted to the body, instead of the frame, you can imagine the damage they would cause. Really bad, but then, Tri-Five Chevys were never my all-time favorite cars. I like the 54 better.
plymouth wants to talk about frames..but they never talk about how thin the plymouth frame is at8;30in the video to the ford..and the parking brake is better on the ford cuzz it locks the back wheels ..not the drive shaft like plymouth were if you jack up one wheel the car could roll or move on the plymouth..and say what they want ..ball joint suspension was ahead of plymouths king pin design ...and you had a park position on ford in the tranny...plymouth did not have it .....and again the plymouth 6 was old and outdated flathead
Yeah kingpins were fine till they wore and they wore much faster than ball joints. What Ford and Chevy did with the brakes was called 'self energizing' brakes and it reduced the pedal pressure required and went on to be standard everywhere until disks came out. Plymouth did have a more modern power steering system but how many Ford, Chevrolet ar Plymouth buyers got power steering in 1955. Power steering was something that was not often seen until the mid 1960's except in very high end cars.
The frame wasn't thin, the ball joints were a better design and they were in the process of switching but the kingpin didn't get you any performance for 55. Yes the parking brake could be a big problem when the rear went flat, they gave customer wheel chocks to put in the trunk with the jack. Jacking any of those are cars up on a non flat surface was crazy :)
@@autochronicles8667 suppose you park a ford in winter with one wheel on the dry and the other on ice..with ford and chevy you have the wheels locked..but the plymouth just locked the driveshaft..leaving the rear wheels not secure and free to roll unlocked
![[Dealer Film] 55 Plymouth vs the Chevy aka the BLUNT NOSED BARGE?](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/R25yF54WBd8/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Dealer Film] 55 Plymouth vs the Chevy aka the BLUNT NOSED BARGE?](/img/tr.png)
![[Dealer Film] 1957 Plymouth vs Chevy: Christine meets the Hot one?](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9m4OB8ypv_c/mqdefault.jpg)
One thing GM DID have starting 1952 was superior rust resistance compared to Ford and Chrysler. Kind of ironic, as prior to 52, Chrysler products were almost rust proof. The Korean War stopped them from getting that High Chrome Content steel that they had always used. They could only get "regular" steel, and they never went back to the good stuff.
Thanks for sharing. My mom's family bought a 1957 Chevrolet. They had a Nomad yellow with white top. They didn't have it very long, as there were 6 kids, and another 5 on the way by 1964. It's transmission went bad and my grandfather went to a Cadillac, he bought a 1959 Ranchero for his company.
The oriflow shock absorbers are what sold me on the Plymouth.
It is beyond my mind how could the 55 (56 and 57 too) Chevy be so successful in terms of sales when new. The frame without cross members literally surprised me (like, how does it even hold up?).
Ford did a great job styling wise (indeed if I were in Fall 1954 and had to buy a new car from those three brands I'd likely get a Crown Vic, with that lowered roofline 😍)
Plymouth was all new and it showed, only the rooflines of the hardtops in 1955 and 56 were a bit of a letdown for how stubby they were. The 4 door pillared sedan looked awesome, on the other hand.
GM had the biggest marketshare and customers were loyal back then... Of the 55 v8 cars. Chevy had 50%, Ford 40% and Plymouth 10%... But Ford charged a higher prices so Ford probably made the same revenue with the 10% lower sales. Also Ford had less brands... Chrysler and GM had diluted "low" tier brands due to so many brands up the chain... Dodge/Pontiac had good sized sales which ate into Plymouth/Chevy. Yeah no cross member is kind of shocking...
PISS ON CADILLAC!! Interrupting a video mid-word guarantees I WILL NEVER CONSIDER THAT "PRODUCT" BEING HAWKED!!!!!
I guess this video proves that styling was the most important thing in selling cars in 1955... according to this video the worst built car, the Chevy, became the biggest seller and an icon on the mid-fifties, while the best built, the Plymouth is hardly ever seen today.... of course 1955 being the first year of the Chevy small block V8 probably had a lot to do with its legacy
Chevy sold the most every year except 1957... Chrysler stole so much market share off GM it allowed Ford to take the sales lead. But sales don't equal quality :) And this is the advantages from Chrysler stand point... I'm sure GM would have had some points itself... But its still interesting to see they actually tore each others cars down and GM maybe needed a cross brace? or were they over kill? And those Plymouth seats did look nice.
Out sold them in 56 and 57 too.
Dads 55 Desoto was an inspection fail for rust in 1961. Might explain why the 55 Chevy is an icon now
Most of the big 3 were building cars to last 2-3 years... Chrysler had a serious rocker issue in 55-59... they started full dipping the cars in 60 with the unibody... The damage had been done already... Their holes were too small and often got clogged up and poof GONE nearly instantly. GM kept pushing the "air flow dry" rockers just to keep digging at this sore spot at Chrysler and Ford. Everyones rockers were rusting... it took them a long time to fix with plastic rockers but it was absurd, almost like the car makers wanted the rockers to rust out :)
If the power steering in column leaks the fluid drips into the passenger compartment around the driver’s feet….
Not possible with the Chrysler unit but the more prone to failure heater valves did... ack.. your car fills up
Not sure about the 50s, but 60s era A and B body mopars would lose their ride quality at around 80k miles. Sloppy steering, serious body lean and banging bumps. I ought to know I have owned and driven enough of them. The drive trains were good though. Ford and GM intermediates maintained their ride quality.
yeah i think all cars were expected to be in the junkyard around that time... 12 month warrantys... The rubber involved was probably the issue as it was probably just regular rubber... I know every car ive restored the suspension rubber is all shot :)
@@autochronicles8667 You could get over 200k miles out of a well maintained car back then. Usually the first thing to fail were the cork and paper gaskets used as they begin to leak and seep oils. But those gaskets were the technology back then. Once they began leaking people would fail to have them replaced then they would be driving on low trans fluid and eng. oils much of the time causing other real issues later. I ran all my cars well past 100k miles as most in my family. Never had an eng. failure. My brother had his 65 Galaxie 500 trans rebuilt once with over 100k miles. My mother had her 65' Barracuda Trans rebuilt once way past 100k. My father was strictly big Oldsmobiles like 98s, I don't think he had any rebuilds. I sold my 69 Ply Road Runner with almost 140k miles and could still stomp it and burn rubber for 10' with G60x14s on the rear, but the car handled and drove like shit at that time. My brother Galaxie was well over 100k miles when he sold it but still drove nice even with wide rear tires and airshocks jacked up. My fathers Oldsmobiles never lost their ride.
Yet today a 55 Chevy brings a hell of a lot more money and was even more popular in 55' than Ford or Plymouth. Plymouth had styling issues until the late 60s.
Chevy being the biggest brand, more survived I think and obviously being the cars that people grew up with, they are more desirable... There were certainly more "Chevy" guys than Plymouth guys out there :) that help and obviously a whole host of factors... People don't even know what a 55 Plymouth is when they see one. And the late 50's mopars are certainly catching up and mainly due to they are simply super rare. Those late 50s Forward Look convertible cars fetch huge numbers.
I don't require colorization...
Love it
Yeah I like these, unfortunately only Chrysler did engineering comparisons.
Wow, the Chevy's frame had no cross members? Almost as bad as the later X member frame with no side rails. Never used to think about this before, but later realized that it was very unsafe, which is a shame. The 54 and older Chevy's were very good as far as frame rigidity. I guess that's why the Japanese were able to sell the most unsafe cars of all - "stupid Americans don't care about safety, so why should we?"
I did find that kind of a shock, I guess for standard driving it was okay, i bet the guys racing were putting cross members in... and they always pointed out the shocks were mounted to the body... that had to be bad
@@autochronicles8667 I sure would think so. Shocks can freeze up. If they are mounted to the body, instead of the frame, you can imagine the damage they would cause. Really bad, but then, Tri-Five Chevys were never my all-time favorite cars. I like the 54 better.
God help Ford and Chevy after THIS.... I am glad the children were asleep.
More Mopar!😊
plymouth wants to talk about frames..but they never talk about how thin the plymouth frame is at8;30in the video to the ford..and the parking brake is better on the ford cuzz it locks the back wheels ..not the drive shaft like plymouth were if you jack up one wheel the car could roll or move on the plymouth..and say what they want ..ball joint suspension was ahead of plymouths king pin design ...and you had a park position on ford in the tranny...plymouth did not have it .....and again the plymouth 6 was old and outdated flathead
Yeah kingpins were fine till they wore and they wore much faster than ball joints. What Ford and Chevy did with the brakes was called 'self energizing' brakes and it reduced the pedal pressure required and went on to be standard everywhere until disks came out. Plymouth did have a more modern power steering system but how many Ford, Chevrolet ar Plymouth buyers got power steering in 1955. Power steering was something that was not often seen until the mid 1960's except in very high end cars.
The frame wasn't thin, the ball joints were a better design and they were in the process of switching but the kingpin didn't get you any performance for 55. Yes the parking brake could be a big problem when the rear went flat, they gave customer wheel chocks to put in the trunk with the jack. Jacking any of those are cars up on a non flat surface was crazy :)
@@autochronicles8667 suppose you park a ford in winter with one wheel on the dry and the other on ice..with ford and chevy you have the wheels locked..but the plymouth just locked the driveshaft..leaving the rear wheels not secure and free to roll unlocked
Plymouth over the years you could watch and hear them rust out.
Better built and prettier especially in 56