Last year, CC’s JP Cavanaugh examined the mystery of the 1949-50 GM B-body. His excellent two-part article looked at the post-war changes occurring at General Motors that seemingly put its body sharing program in turmoil. Coincidentally, when JP originally published this article I had just finished reading Thomas Bonsall’s book The Cadillac Story, which discusses some of those changes in finer detail. There are few historians that have delved deeply into this time period of General Motors. Consequently, I started doing my own digging and I ended up going down a bit of a rabbit hole; the result is this article on GM’s body interchangeability program.
Lockheed P-38 Lightning
In the late 1930’s Harley Earl received special permission from the US Government to have sneak peek at the newly developed Lockheed P-38 Lightning. Earl brought along his top designers including Bill Mitchell and Frank Hershey. The viewing had significant impact on the designers, and was the inspiration for Hershey’s tail fins on the 1948 Cadillac. Bill Mitchell later said in an interview with James Howell “You have to understand the value of what we saw in that plane’s design. We saw that you could take one line and continue it from the cowl all the way back to the tip of the tail – that you could have one unbroken flowing line.”
Both Mitchell and Hershey ended up serving during the war. Hershey returned and was assigned to start working on the new 1948 Cadillac. Mitchell had no significant involvement, as he was still involved in the service during that time. By the time Mitchell returned, the design for the 1948 Cadillac had been locked in place.
Above are some early styling sketches for the 1948 Cadillac. Note the themes from the P-38 being present, including tail fins.
Hershey initially worked several design ideas which were influenced by the P-38 and eventually evolved into the Interceptor. The concept of the continuous line from the front to rear was used, as he’d seen on the P-38. Hershey first experimented with tail fins on some of these early concepts. The Interceptor was eventually developed into two running prototypes. Ultimately, Harley Earl deemed the Interceptor to be too radical and too advanced for the public. Earl told Hershey to take Cadillac in a new direction.
These styling themes developed into the Interceptor. Although this styling theme was abandoned for the 1948 Cadillac, Cadillac continued to develop the car and created a running prototype of the Interceptor (see video here). Several of the styling themes would be revisited in the 1950 Cadillac.
During the winter of 1945-46, there was a UAW strike which caused some havoc for the design team who were also supposed to be participating in the strike. Instead of crossing the picket lines, the dedicated Cadillac design team relocated to work out of the basement of a farm house owned by Frank Hershey. The team toiled away and within four or five months the 1948 Cadillac design was completed.
All this hasty change in the design process created other problems. According to Richard Stout, who worked at GM styling from 1947 to 1950, although the 1948 Cadillac was a C-Body, it actually used the body shell that was originally destined to be the new B-body shell. It was essential that Cadillac, GM’s flagship, be one of GM’s first divisions with a new post-war design and the new C-Body shell wouldn’t be ready for 1948. Although no source specifically spells out the reason, I suspect the abandonment of the Interceptor design and a hurried redesign of the Cadillac had much to do with this. Therefore, the B-body shell was promoted to be the new C-body putting Cadillac at the forefront of GM’s new post-war car designs. This smaller C-body shell is the reason why the 1948 C-bodies had shorter wheelbases than the previous C-bodies, being roughly the same as the 1947 B-body. This change had a ripple effect that would upset GM’s nicely organized A-B-C body program.
1948 Oldsmobile 98 clay and production model
Despite the design team toiling away to complete 1948 C-body designs, the cars were not ready until well into the 1948 model year. Oldsmobile and Cadillac began production in February of 1948, and the cars went on sale in March of 1948, resulting in a shortened model year for both makes. The 1948 C-body shell was to be used by Cadillac, Buick and Oldsmobile, unfortunately, things didn’t play out that way. A new Buick was also supposed to be released for 1948. The design for the 1948 Buick had been locked in place and was ready for production. Even the catalog illustrations had been commissioned. Nevertheless, at the eleventh hour Harlow Curtice had second thoughts about the design. He was not happy with the front end styling on the new Buicks, and according to Richard Stout, Curtice had a nightmare where the new Buick was mistaken to be a Chrysler Airflow. Whether or not Harlow actually had the nightmare, history clearly shows that he had serious concerns about the styling. He believed the front styling as too “soft” and ordered it revised immediately. The last minute alterations meant that there was no possibility that Buick would have a new car ready for the 1948 model year.
Twins? Harlow Curtice’s nightmare
Ned Nickles, who had worked on the 1948 Cadillac, was newly assigned to Buick. His first duty was to revise the Buick front-end design. His changes were small but had a significant impact. The hood was reworked to have a more upright leading edge for a bold look and the grille was changed to a soon to be traditional toothy Buick grille. It was during these revisions that Nickles added the ventiports to the Buick. This idea was first used on his own personal 1948 Buick, although on his car each port lit up with an amber light as a corresponding spark plug fired. Nickles’ revised design satisfied Curtice and Buick finally got the new C-body for 1949.
This was the 1948 Buick that never was. Note the hood’s leading edge is much more curved than the production 1949 Buicks, giving it a softer look.
1949 Oldsmobile 88
Meanwhile, the 1949 Cadillac and Oldsmobile C-bodies continued with few changes. The new A-body used by Chevrolet, Pontiac and Olds 76/88 lines was introduced for the 1949 model year. It was styled much in the same fashion as the 1948 C-Body. With no new B-body for 1949, all Pontiacs were reverted to the smaller A-Body shell while Oldsmobile also demoted all of its models below the 98 to the to the A-body shell. I suspect this may have been a compromise for Oldsmobile, but it was the best it could do considering there was no new B-body. Buick on the other hand, was likely unwilling to downgrade its base model Special to the A-body, so it carried on with the 1941 B-body for the 1949 model year.
A 1949 Buick Special, the only GM B-body produced for the 1949 model year, still using the 1941 body shell
1949 Buick Roadmaster
Despite all the work that went into the new C-bodies, some in General Motors had second thoughts about the designs. Originally, the 1948 C-body shell was intended to be developed further. There were plans to introduce B-body and D-body variations and even a facelifted 1950 Cadillac design was proposed. Nonetheless, a last minute decision was made to restyle the C-body for 1950. The fact that there were plans for a 1949 Cadillac Series 75 and a 1950 facelifted Cadillac, and no true B-body variation of the 1948-49 C-body was ever developed as planned, supports the 1950 redesign was likely a crash program.
1949 Cadillac Series 75 styling proposal
This 1950 Cadillac proposal is a mildly facelifted 1949 Cadillac.
While on the surface the 1950 C-bodies appeared to be all new, they were actually heavily reworked 1948-49 C-body shells. After GM’s large investment into these new bodies, it would make little financial sense to completely abandon and develop a new body in such a short order. According to historian Thomas Bonsall, the 1950 body shells carried over the same cowl, the most complex of the body’s stampings, while the exterior panels were heavily reworked. Earl directed his designers to drop the fender line lower, more so on the Buick, to create a distinctive look from the competition.
Some early 1950 Cadillac styling proposals.
The question arises as to why General Motors undergo such a heavy restyling in such a short order? This was a time when Alfred Sloan was being particularly conscious of spending. Sloan remembered that shortly after World War One, once supply caught up with demand, there was a recession that hurt General Motors significantly. Accordingly, he took steps to safeguarding GM to avoid this from happening again.
Evolution of the 1950 Cadillac to the production models. The fastbacks wouldn’t see production.
This 1950 Cadillac Series 75 appears to be nearly ready for production.
However, GM had to remain competitive, and the 1948-49 C-body was not breaking new ground. It was really just a continuation of the same styling concepts GM had used on the previous 1941 bodies. At this time there was a shift in design language in the industry with cars such as Hudson, Lincoln, Packard, Mercury, Kaiser and Frazer all of which used new bathtub-like designs. GM was not following this trend. This new design language was showing quick success in the market place and it shared some elements that Harley Earl had deemed too radical when he rejected the Interceptor. Undoubtedly, the perceived shift in design by the industry was unsettling for GM, and immediate changes needed were required.
Historian Thomas Bonsall believed the above, and states the resulting 1950 restyle for the Oldsmobile, Buick, Cadillac lines was a crash program to bring the cars more in line with the styling trends of the day. On the other hand Tim Howley of Collectible Automobile Magazine, claimed the opposite. He claimed the “P-38 inspired” 1949 Buick was too radical, and that Harlow Curtice was lukewarm to the design. Certainly, Harlow Curtice had his reservations about the initial ’48 Buick design and it’s also possible that even after the revisions Curtice was never truly satisfied. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to believe that anyone thought the conservative and evolutionary 1948-49 C-bodies came off as too radical. I believe the evidence shows that Thomas Bonsall’s theory is correct, which is supported by the fact the 1950 GM designs have elements closer to that of its competitors.
These Buick styling proposals show a high fender line and use the old 1949 style tail lights. Production 1950 Buicks had a much lower fender line. The top proposal is a B-Body while the lower is a C-body.
A pre-production Oldsmobile 98 being compared to some of its competitors.
Furthermore, by this time Bill Mitchell had returned to the studio. He was not particularly fond of the 1948-49 Cadillacs. He described them as too tall, and not wide enough. No doubt, part of his distaste was due to the fact he had no involvement in this design. Undoubtedly his ego came into play, and he likely wanted a car with his design. As such, the 1950 design was led by Mitchell and he chose a lower, wider and more substantial look, despite little actual growth.
This B-Body shell as the basis for the 1950 GM Body interchange program. All the B, C, C-special and D-bodies shared this same basic structure.
The new 1950 C-bodies were rather revolutionary for General Motors. As stated previously, Alfred Sloan was looking for ways to save costs. Body sharing wasn’t a new concept, however for 1950 GM revised its method of manufacturing body shells to maximize part interchangeability and minimize costs. Previously the A-B-C body shells were each separate and unique structures, sharing little between. For 1950 the B, C, C-special and D-bodies all used the same basic engineering and body structure with the major differentiator being length of the body. As of 1950, the GM body shells, with the exception of the A-body, were based on one basic body shell that was simply stretched or shrunk. The designation, no longer discerned unique structures, rather, only referenced the specific variation of the one basic body shell. For the 1950 model year, all Cadillac, Buick and Oldsmobiles used this new body shell in its four variations.
Released August 8th 1949, the 1950 Buick Special was the first of GM’s cars to wear the new 1950 B-body.
The first car to market with the new body shell was the Buick with the early introduction of the 1950 Buick Special on August 8th, 1949. Likely the reason Buick was allowed to debut the new body first was as a consolation for having no base model for numerous months for 1949. The 1949 Buick Special was stuck with old 1941 B-body, however, it was a very short production year, ending in December 1948. It is probable that using the old 1941 B-body was a last minute solution for Buick, much like Cadillac had to reused the pre-war body on the 1949 Series 75. After the 1950 Special’s hit the market, the new redesigned 1950 Cadillacs, and the remaining Buicks and Oldsmobiles followed later in the year.
Note the same roofline on all B-body sedans. Also note the relationship of the rear wheel on the Cadillac when comparing B-body to C-Body.
So, if these cars all used the same basic body shell, where exactly was the size difference? One of the easiest identifier between the cars bodies was the rooflines, notably the B-body sedans having a vertical C-pillar. This was a clue to the difference between the body shells, as different sized bodies required different roof structures. It may be tempting to examine wheelbases and body lengths to determine body shells, but this is not an accurate way to measure a body shell size. The true differentiator was the dash to rear axle distance. Fisher Body defines the “dash” as the front of the body or the “zero –inch” body line. This dash to rear axle distance grew larger with each body shell and the extra space was added to the rear the passenger compartment. So a C-body had more interior length than a B-Body, a C-Special was longer than a C-body and so forth.
The Cadillac Series 62, Sixty Special and Series 75. Not the longer trunk on the Sixty Special.
Cadillac is the best car to examine as it had models with each of the four variations, the B, C, C-special and the D-body. Cadillac had a dash to rear axle distance of 98” on the Series 61 (B-body), the Series 62 (C-body) was 4” longer at 102”, and the 60 Special (C-special) was 4” longer at 106.” The size between the body shells grew in a logical progression of 4 inches. The result was a noticeable size increase, while minimizing the cost to the General Motors. The Series 75 D-Bodies were the only shells to have more than a 4” increase with a 123.75” dash to rear axle length. However, unlike previous Series 75 Cadillacs, it shared much of its structure with the smaller cars.
Buick B-Body four-window sedans (top) and C-body six-window sedans (bottom). This diagram shows the dash to front axle distance and the dash to rear axle distance.
Buick primarily used B-bodies, with the only exceptions being the C-body Model 52 Super sedan and Model 72 Roadmaster sedan. The extra body length is noted when one compares the same make with different body shells. For example, when the Model 50 Buick Super sedan (B-body) is compared to the Model 52 Super sedan (C-Body), there is precisely a 4” increase in length, and the difference is entirely in the longer rear passenger compartment. Oldsmobile 98 had the simplest line-up, with all models using the B-body.
This diagram shows the difference in the Buick hood lengths and the difference between the B-Body and C-Body.
Each division further individualized its styling by changing the dash to front axle length. In front of the cowl, there isn’t much costly sheet metal, so to vary the nose length on a vehicle really does not add significant cost. Oldsmobile and Cadillac only had one nose length respectively, both of which were unique for each make. On the other hand, Buick had two variations of the straight-8. Accordingly, it had two corresponding nose lengths, keeping with the tradition of long hoods on its premium cars. These changes significantly altered the styling theme, allowing Buick to have a more sporting appearance with its long nose and Cadillac to have a more understated conservative design.
On the left is the Cadillac B-body coupe compared to the C-body coupe. Note the longer trunk on the C-body Cadillac. The Buick B-body coupe has a longer hood but shorter rear deck than the C-body Cadillac.
Cadillac did not have the varying nose length of Buick, but it did have two rear deck lengths. The entry level Series 61s and the Series 62 sedans got a short stubby trunk, each with 53.18” of rear overhang. Moving up to the Series 62 coupe got you 5 extra inches of overhang, which increased the overall length a corresponding 5 inches. The 60-Special also got this long deck variation, to ensure its size was imposing, while the already long Series 75 used the shorter deck.
GM’s 1950 B-body sedans
Ultimately, this 1950 B-C body interchangeability program’s objective was to lower cost, which it did by sharing the major engineering and body structure over multiple bodies. Nevertheless, when changes were required between the different bodies, the styling department attempted to maximize the unique styling features for each body. Since the shorter B-body 4-door sedan needed a new roof, stylist designed a unique C-pillar to help differentiate the cars. While the six window roof of the C-body showed it was the larger more premium car. To help minimize cost further, both the Cadillac and Oldsmobile B-bodies shared the exterior front door skin. Moreover, the D-Body Cadillac Series 75 used a reworked B-body Cadillac coupe quarter panel, rather than requiring its own custom quarter panel.
GM’s 1950 C-body sedans. Note the six windows.
Below is a chart for the 1951 B-C body Oldsmobile, Buick and Cadillacs. For each car it shows the body designation, the dash to front axle distance, the dash to rear axle distance, wheelbase, front overhang, rear overhang and overall length. Looking at these dimensions, it is very easy to spot the B, C, C-special and D body shells. It should be noted that the dash to rear axle distances vary slightly between makes. This is simply due to difference in rear suspension geometry between the makes. Although all cars shared the body structures, the chassis were unique to each division. That said, the 4” graduation between the body designations remains constant regardless of the make.
This body interchangeability program was quite sophisticated for the times, and was one of the most ingenious product rationalization programs of the industry. When Richard Stout left General Motors to work for Ford, he enlightened Lincoln-Mercury execs with a presentation on the body interchange program. Known within the Lincoln-Mercury division as the “paper doll show,” Stout used cut-outs of basic body shells along with cut-outs of different body components from the Cadillac, Olds and Buick, each with magnetic backings. Using his presentation board he could literally build different variations of the cars using the various cut-outs for fenders, doors, and quarter panels. This level of body interchangeability was completely unheard of at Ford, and the Lincoln-Merc execs realized how much money this program would save their company. So then, why when 1951 rolled around did GM mess with such a good thing?
This is a photo of the presentation Richard Stout made to Lincoln Mercury Execs in the early 1950s.
For 1951, GM introduced another new body, called the OB-body. This new body was the hiccup that altered GM’s well played plan. The OB body was used on the new 1951 Olds Super 88, which eventually replaced the 88 with its conservative A-body shell, and the Buick Special, demoting it to this smaller body shell. According to Thomas Bonsall, Chevrolet and Pontiac were scheduled to have the OB body shell for 1951, but it ended up being deferred. Historical sources suggest this may have been due to the Korean conflict, or because the new more advanced OB-body shell was too costly to be profitable for Chevrolet or Pontiac, due to the thinner margins per car. When Chevrolet and Pontiac passed on this new body, it left Oldsmobile as the only division using the OB body. This gave Buick the opportunity to jump on board by downsizing the Special. Undoubtedly it reduced production costs for the Special while it helped amortize the costs for the OB shell. The new body downsized the Special, but really only in width, as the OB body was closer to the A-body in width. It still had the same approximate dimensions as the 1950 model in other areas.
The 1951 Oldsmobiles. Top is a 1950 vs 1951 Oldsmobile 98. Bottom in the new OB-body Oldsmobile Super 88 and an A-body Oldsmobile 88.
A C-body proposal for the Oldsmobile 98 didn’t make production.
The OB-body was sized between the A and C body shells, in effect taking the place of traditional B-body. However, it couldn’t be called a B-body since the B-body that was created in 1950 (the shortened C-body), still existed for 1951. So what exactly does the OB designation mean? It’s rather simple – Oldsmobile-Buick. As the story goes, once it was determined this body would not be the new A-body and that Buick and Oldsmobile were to use it exclusively, it was designated “BO” for Buick-Oldsmobile. The obvious negative connotation resulted in the change to OB. All this may be a little confusing, but we must remember that these body designations were for internal use only. It is noteworthy that the OB-body structure was the most modern design of all of GM’s body shells used at this time. The B, C, C-special and D-bodies all used bolt on rear quarter panels, while the OB body had welded on quarter panels. The remainder of Buick, Oldsmobile and Cadillac’s line-up was unchanged for 1951, using the same body shells as in 1950, as previously outlined.
Early Buick sales literature showed a Series 44 “Custom Special” which was essentially a facelifted 1950 Special using the old B-body shell. These cars were never produced, and only the OB-body Series 40 Special went into production (see below).
The Series 40 Special with the new more modern OB-body. Note the narrower width and the higher fender line from the B-C-body Buicks.
More adjustments occurred in 1952 when the Oldsmobile 98 was revised to use a longer variation of the OB-body. This change resulted in all Oldsmobiles using the smaller OB-body shell. Cadillac dropped its Series 61 B-body, meaning all Cadillacs used a C-Body or larger body shell. Buick was unchanged from 1951, using the same B-C body shells, and the 40 series Specials using the OB body. It should be noted that the B-body shell continued for 1952-53. However, Buick was the only car line to use the B-body shell during those years, albeit, solely as a 2-door. Buick dropped the B-body Model 51 Super Tourback sedan after 1951. The only remaining 4-door sedans were the Model 52 Buick Super and Model 72 Roadmaster 4-door sedans, both of which used the C-body.
A styling proposal for the 1952 Oldsmobile 98 using the B-body that didn’t see production. For 1952 the Oldsmobile would switch to the OB body.
An OB-body Oldsmobile 98 styling proposal, with an extended rear deck.
This OB-body 1952 Oldsmobile 98 proposal was close to the production model.
Many historical sources revise the nomenclature for the body shells for the 1952 model year. The OB body shell sometimes gets re-dubbed B-body and the former B- C-body are grouped together as the C-body. This makes some sense, as the OB-body was sized between the A and C-body, was a unique body structure, and was in fact filling the spot of the traditional B-Body. However, the B-body with its short dash to rear axle length was still used by all 1952-53 Buick 2-doors. This shorter body should have a separate designation which is why I believe it’s less confusing to simply continue to use the OB designation clearly differentiate the two.
1949 compared to 1952 Chevrolet and Pontiacs
While the medium and high priced GM cars were shuffling through all these body shells, the A-body Chevrolet and Pontiacs soldiered on from 1949 – 52 with no major changes. By 1953 they were long overdue for revision. Oldsmobile and Buick had commandeered the OB-body shell, so Chevrolet and Pontiac had to make do with the old A-body shell for two more years. As a result, the 1953 Chevrolet and Pontiac bodies were heavily revised but were still based on the 1949 A-body shell. Examining the interior dimensions and cowl area reveals its true roots.
When 1954 came along, things went back to the old pre-1948 system for General Motors body shells. By this time, the worries of a recession had vanished while medium priced cars were selling like hotcakes, so cost savings were less of a concern. New separate B and C body shells were introduced for 1954 and despite the similar appearance, the B-body was a significantly smaller body structure than the C-bodies. No longer were the B and C-body only differentiated by length. The OB-body was abandoned. A new A-body was released for 1955 which finally brought Chevrolet and Pontiac back into the game with a modern body.
Fast forward to 1958, and the A, B and C bodies have again all been revised and things appeared to have gone mostly back to GM’s old body system. That was until the 1957 Chrysler products caused GM’s 1959 crash program. The story of GM’s radical ‘59s is a story that is well documented. While the 1959 designs were new and cutting edge, GM did go back in time for one aspect of these cars – the body interchangeability. Much like GM had done in 1950, the 1959 B,C and D bodies reverted to using the same basic body shell, that was simply varied in size. The other major change was that Chevrolet and Pontiac were added into the mix, both being promoted to a B-body with the demise of the A-body structure. What had been laid out in 1950, finally came into fruition in 1959.
1952 Chevrolet and 1954 Chevrolet. Note that the firewall and cowl areas are nearly identical.
Looking back, it seems GM was a mess of activity during the late 1940s and early 1950s. It is interesting to me that while the late 1950s are so well documented with GM’s radical crash redesigns and major changes to body programs, but there is so little detailed history on the early part of the decade. Even contemporary road tests of the day, hardly mentioned the fact that cars such as the Oldsmobile 98 had major body shell changes from 1951 to 1952. There is a lot of detail in this story, so I will summarize my findings in a simpler summation.
GM initially planned on releasing new post war designs for the A-B-C-bodies. Due to changes in the Cadillac program where the Interceptor design theme was abandoned, the new quickly redesigned 1948 Cadillac ended up using the B-Body shell, which was re-designated the C-body to ensure it could be one of the first new cars GM released post-war. Oldsmobile and Buick followed Cadillac’s lead, until Harlow Curtice forced a last minute redesign of the Buick. Design teams worked on new B-body and D-body variations of this 1948 C-body. The revised Buick was released for 1949, but by this time, it was decided a crash redesign was required for the 1950 B-C cars to move the cars more in-line with the styling trends. This resulted in no new B or D-body for 1949. The 1948 C-body shell was heavily reworked for 1950 with four separate variations, each with their own body designations. They were only differentiated by dash to rear axle length. The C-body was still the same size as the 1949 C-body, but a shorter variant, now called the B-body was also introduced along with the longer C-Special and D-body.
The A-body line was to be updated for 1951, with a newly designed OB-body shell. Chevrolet and Pontiac couldn’t afford the body shell, which left Olds using it alone. This allowed Buick to jump on board and use this same body shell. As a result, GM now inadvertently had three unique body shell structures, A-body, OB-Body and the B-C Body (including C-Special, D-Body). In 1952 Oldsmobile moved the 98 down to a longer variation of the OB body, and Cadillac abandoned the B-body. This left Buick using B-C bodies exclusively, while Cadillac used the C, C-special and D-body for 1952-53.
Even in the 1980’s GM’s BOF cars still used the same formula created in 1950. This D-body Cadillac is just a longer version of the B-body used by the more pedestrian Chevrolet Caprice.
The 1950 body interchange program resulted in GM reducing costs and simplifying its product line. While successful in doing so, there were a few bumps along the way that made things work-out less than ideal. However, the end result was the 1950 B-C program ultimately became the template for GM’s body on frame body interchangeability until their demise in 1996. Taking it further, this basic concept of body interchangeability eventually evolved in to the modern concept of platform sharing. Undoubtedly, this time period in General Motors history should be remembered as being historically significant.
Further Reading:
Automotive History: General Motors 1949-50 – The Mystery Of The Missing B Body (Part 1)
Automotive History: General Motors 1949-50 – The Mystery Of The Missing B Body (Part 2)
A special thanks to JP Cavanaugh for his consultation during the writing of this article.
Epic. Completely reaffirms my opinion that 1950 was GM’s best year across the board until 1965. So much eye-candy Vince, and this is a bookmark piece for parsing the various bodies/models. Ned Nickles seems to be one of GM’s more significant stylists, IIRC he was also closely involved in both the first Corvair and 1963 Riviera.
1950 Buick is utterly, utterly the winner here. Had no idea both B and C had 3 and 4 porthole variations. I’ll take any of them.
Thank you Don, it means a lot coming from you. It’s amazing how many variations of that one basic body shell GM was able to make. And unlike the 1980’s at least these cars look significantly different, especially to the average buyer.
I agree that 1950 shows that GM was pretty well on it’s game. While things didn’t work out 100% as planned, Sloan certainly navigated the waters very well at this time. I have also always had a soft spot for the 1950 Buick too, I am have always liked those big teeth.
Congratulations…this is first rate!
An interesting side note to your mention of the Cadillac design team working at Frank Hershey’s farm during the UAW strike: In the second of the early styling sketches for the 1948 Cadillac, the mailbox is labeled “Winkler Mill Farm.” That was the name of Frank Hershey’s farm.
In one of those CC-effect experiences, by sheer coincidence I happened upon this piece of trivia last night, as I was rereading a piece on the ‘48 – ‘49 Cadillac at Aaron Severson’s site, Ate Up With Motor.
It certainly is significant as this was a proven success for GM. Unfortunately it also proved to be their downfall. I never once thought that i would grow to dislike GM what with their mismanagement of Cadillac and the other brands, they have litterally become a joke. Thanks for this trip to an era when GM was truly the king and worthy of my loyalty.
Excellent explanation of some pretty convoluted history.
As a side note, that final picture of the Cadillac assembly line was actually taken at the Detroit Historical Museum. When Cadillac’s long running Clark st plant closed in the late ’80s, the museum acquired the body drop machinery for an animated exhibit.
Thanks for doing all the research. This is fascinating.
“This D-body Cadillac is just a longer version of the B-body used by the more pedestrian Chevrolet Caprice.”
So many forget that Cadillac shared parts with Chevy/BOP for decades. I see posts on other message boards saying “Caddy needs to go back to all unique cars like good old days”.
But also, GM did a good job differentiating cars off same shells for long time. But by the 80’s, they just “phoned it in” thinking “who cares?”
Thanks for this comprehensive analysis of the various body programs, very well done. This enlarges on the Richard H. Stout article in the Special Interest Auto magazine, Mar-Apr 1977, SIA #39, titled “Body Politics, An explanation of GM’s 1950-53 B- and C- body interchangeability program by one of the designers who helped make it work” from which some illustration appear sourced. It was a clever program that got the most use from each additional tooling change to present further desirable sales features.
Mr. Stout demonstrated this to Lincoln-Mercury management which would have benefitted that division but also Ford in general. The response from Ernie Breech isn’t repeatable on a civil forum, only that he blew up and remonstrated in no uncertain terms that any such ideas had to issue from top Ford management, not the subordinates at L-M. Such a close-minded outlook condemned the whole corporation to mismanaging one body sharing program after another well into the 1960’s.
I’m sure the designer of the P-38 Lightning would never have thought that his design would dramatically influence the styling of American automobiles for years to come! It’s all there–the propeller cones that would become “Dagmar” bumpers, the wraparound windshield, the twin tails which would become tailfins, and the sleek front-to-back fuselage that would be reflected in car body shapes of the late ’50s.
Classic example of the “ripple effect”: the things we do have effects and consequences far beyond our original intentions and wild imaginings.
P.S.: The Interceptor has a certain “futuristic purity” which reflects the “World of Tomorrow” themes of the late ’30s. It would be interesting to speculate how car styling would have evolved had it moved forward in this direction (more like what Nash/Hudson/Lincoln Cosmopolitan were doing).
You’ve referred to the designer of the P-38; the P-38’s significant influence on the GM designers was a key theme of the story.
The P-38 designer for Lockheed was Kelly Johnson and I’d not be afraid to conjecture that his contributions to American industrial design were much more important and long lasting than those of Earl, Hershey or Mitchell.
The look of the P-38 tail continued in other Lockheeds – to include the model 18 Lodestar and all the beautiful Constellations. This was Kelly Johnson’s work. His career lasted decades. The still radical looking F-104 Strarfighter and the SR-71 Blackbird were his too.
Thanks for this deep dive to shed light on any remaining questions as to what was going on at the time at GM.
It was pretty obvious to me that the ’50s were just an evolution of the ’48 bodies, with the addition of the shorter version (and longer D).
The point about Mitchell and the ’48s is interesting. I always was a bit surprised at how conservative the ’48s were. I came to realize it was a pretty last minute decision by Earl to ditch the Interceptor. But he went too far.
To tell the truth: like many creative persons, it appears Earl had his best days in his earlier years. I’m not really a fan of his post-war stuff, with some exceptions that were undoubtedly the influence of Mitchell and others, like the ’55 A body Chevy.
As the 50s wore on, most of GMs styling became relatively worse. It wasn’t original or creative. It was just more excessive with increasingly ridiculous chrome and affectations.
This of course is brought home by Exner upstaging GM with his ’57s. Earl was way past his sell-by date.
The OB body story is the most interesting part here, especially that it was originally intended as the new A body for Chevy and Pontiac. I’m rather amazed that Chevy and Pontiac managed to make their ’49 bodies work for as long as they did. Four years with the same body was a lifetime back then. And meanwhile Ford had a clean new body in ’52.
I have owned some of these cars. Still don’t have a clue what a A, B or C body is. And I really don’t care!
I am going to cling to the idea that much of this was more in the nature of reaction than actual planning. From the time that Cadillac hijacked the planned B structure to turn into a new C body, everything got thrown out of whack. Add in the fact that Buick was very much the “Super Division” at GM (especially with ex-Buick chief Harlow Curtiss heading GM) and you can see where whatever Buick (and to a lesser extent Cadillac) wanted at GM they got.
Stout’s presentation made a lot of sense only if we ignore the OB body and its place in the lineup. I think there was a tremendous need within GM (and among historians since) for there to have been a B body because “GM has always had a B body.”
I remain interested in just how many people at the time actually called this smaller big car a “B body” – would they have done so without the historic precedent of the A-B-C program? Recall that Studebaker offered three different dash-to-axle lengths in 1947-48 (Champion, Commander, Land Cruiser) but nobody ever suggested that they were anything other than a single body in three lengths.
I think the 1950-51 B/C structure (whatever we want to call it) made a terrible Buick Special – it was simply way too large and gave too few reasons to move up the Buick ladder. I have a hard time with the rationale that Chevy and Pontiac could not afford a new body (the eventual OB) – this is an area that really needs more research. What makes more sense is that Buick was still engaged in “emergency countermeasures” with the huge 1950 Special and needed something smaller (that was not the existing A body which Olds was satisfied with.) It would not at all be surprising if Buick said “hey, we really need that new body, Chevy – you can get by with your old one for another couple of years.”
Having spent way too much time down these interconnected rabbit holes myself, I understand how the one thing that is really clear is that we are all scratching our heads a bit at how GM’s larger car plans played out from 1948-53. Excellent work, Vince.
I remain interested in just how many people at the time actually called this smaller big car a “B body”
FWIW, since I was a kid and saw these cars, I could tell that they were just different length versions of the same body. It was way too obvious. The Cadillac front end was exactly the same, as was the cowl, windshield and front doors. I just assumed from the get-go that these were different length versions of the same body.
But I wasn’t around in 1950! 🙂 And of course my frame of reference was the contemporary situation at the time (early 60s) when GM was doing the same thing, except with all the brands.
The one thing that rather stumped me back then was the OB cars. I could tell they were different, and I just assumed they were the real B Body cars. Which in effect they were. And I rather assumed the ’54 B Bodies were just a replacement for them. FWIW, I think the OB really is the true B Body. Buick’s use of the short C Body for their two doors is just that: a short C body.
Stout’s presentation made a lot of sense only if we ignore the OB body and its place in the lineup.
Stouts presentation was made before the OB body came into existence. But yes, it does of course throw things off some in terms of a one-body fits all approach.
When I had been doing my research in this area (and again when I was in an email exchange with Vince) I tried searching online for various Fisher Body manuals to see how they referred to these cars. In 1948-49 several manuals referred to “A Series” cars and “C Series” cars. Starting in 1950 everything except A body manuals seemed to just mention make and model names. I have yet to see a Fisher Body manual refer to anything in the 1950-51 period as a “B Series” or B body. In fairness, I don’t think I have found online references to complete sets so that I could make a hard statement about this.
Stout clearly referred to it as a B body once he was at Ford and multiple historians have as well. And perhaps there are some Fisher Body materials that clearly call the “Short C” or “C Minus” body a B. I am just saying that I have not yet seen them.
JP, while you and I have looked into this era quite deeply, and I think for the most part we agree on the majority of the facts, I don’t think we’ll ever agree with the body designations. I really don’t see any issue with calling the shortest of the 1950 body shells a B-body. GM set it’s own rules and why couldn’t it have changed what a body designation denotes for 1950? Clearly the B-body was intended to be a separate body, and GM took steps to differentiate it. And there is no evidence that GM called the 1950 B-body anything else. If the 1950 D-body is worthy of a separate designation and it is really just a lengthened C-body with a new roof, why is the B-body not worthy? Further, as we know from 1959 onward, the B-C-D body were all just variations of the same basic body shell. Why is this okay in 1959 and beyond but not okay for 1950?
The big bump in the road was the 1951 OB body. If it had replaced the A-body as it was originally planned, than I suspect things wouldn’t have gotten so muddied. But since they A-body continued and the OB was added, it in effect became the middle sized “B-body” as per the previous GM system. I continue to refer to it as “OB-body” beyond 1951 simply to avoid confusion. Of course at this same time, GM was simplifying its body lines to reduce the number of variations (compare 1950 to 1953) and so the number of the 1950 B-body based shells was reduced to only Buick coupes by 1952. However, I still argue this shouldn’t just be lumped in with other C-bodies, as it still had a significantly smaller dash to rear axle length, meaning smaller passenger compartment.. Previous to 1948 when there was three clear body shells. I suspect that the dash to rear axle length for each series was relatively consistent. Length wheelbase were varied with the different noses and tails.
On the OB body being passed on by Chevrolet, I will reword that sentence. From what I found, the OB body was too costly for Chevrolet and Pontiac. So maybe Fisher Body just went overboard on the body, which meant that it was too expensive for Chevrolet and Pontiac to make a profit on it. There is very little information on why this decision was made. I suspect much of it is lost in the sands of time now. I also suspect that Buick jumped on board the OB body more at the last moment. Evidence of this is supported by the fact that there was a 1951 B-Body Buick Special planned. Why would Buick have done this then abandoned it at the last moment, had the OB been it’s plan all along? With Chevrolet and Pontiac passing on OB, Buick was needed to help amortize the costs of that body. And realistically, the OB special was only narrower than the B-Body special, otherwise it wasn’t that much smaller.
As for Richard Stout’s presentation, the OB body is irrelevant. He wasn’t going to Lincoln Merc execs to simply show that the B and C body were pretty much the same car, rather his point was to show how GM made so many variations of one car and how many major parts they all shared. His presentation would have been just as effective if all the cars were C-bodies. The point was GM had shared all of it’s major engineering costs and structure among its most expensive and most profitable cars. Ford had nothing like this and were blown away by the fact that GM had cars that appeared so different, yet were really all the same under the skin. Ford had very little interchangeability at this time, so it was really a foreign concept. For example, the Lincoln Limos were essentially custom built, while Cadillac Limos share many parts with the pedestrian sedans.
At the end of the day, I think we at CC have pretty much nailed down most of the history of this era. I truly do enjoy these discussions in history, something that is unique to this site.
My only other thought on the OB body (which is pure speculation) is that perhaps Chevy was aware of the planned product cycles from Ford. They were already a year behind Ford in 1952 and didn’t want to keep following Ford by a year. So perhaps a new 1953 body would indeed have been too expensive if the calculation included the need to amortize it over only 2 years and replace it for 1955.
BTW kudos for all of those fabulous photos. This is the first time I have ever seen the original vision for the 48 Buick.
Excellent article, which both amplifies JP’s articles and contributes new insights. As for body sharing over the years, I offer this experience when I owned a 1978 Cadillac Sedan de Ville, purchased new. When the car was several years old, one of the headlight set screws failed, causing the rectangular light unit to droop. As an Oldsmobile dealer was on my route home from work, rather than drive about ten miles to the Cadillac dealer, I stopped at the Olds dealer’s parts department. I was told that, while the Oldsmobile part was identical to the one used on Chevies, Pontiacs, Buicks and Cadillacs, he couldn’t sell it to me. The C,P,O and B part cost $1, and was white. To differentiate the Cadillac part, it was pink. It cost $2! I had to travel to my local Cadillac dealer to (with apologies to BMW) “keep my Cadillac all Cadillac.” While my family owned numerous Cadillacs, before and after mine, I only bought the one car.
We shouldn’t assume the holdover of the ’51-’52 A-body Chevrolet and Pontiac as taking a back seat to Buick. It may have been simply that the continuing strength of the current 1950 models encouraged management to let it ride another year so two until sales showed softening suggest something new was in order. The OB body was somewhat large at least for Chevrolet, it would have fit Pontiac nicely when they developed the extended deck Star Chief for 1954.
Harlow Curtiss may well have looked at his currently building sales momentum in 1946-’47 and concluded Buick too could ring another good year out of the existing restyled pre-war body without suffering much of a deleterious affect if the proposed 1949 styling displeased him. While its true they did diminish a bit, 1949 more than made up for that. It was a guessing game then as now.
Another masterpiece from CC. Thank you
I just love the Cadillac ‘Interceptor’ concepts. They remind me of the old plastic toy cars I had as a kid. They were about 1-32 scale, and had white tires. They were probably made by Ren Wal or Marx. I also had a Marx Super Service gas station. I would gas up the cars, and park them on the top level of the station. Even when I was a little bruiser,I LOVED anything ‘cars’.
“However, GM had to remain competitive, and the 1948-49 C-body was not as competitive as it could be against the new stylish Lincolns and Packards.”
I laughed when I read this, Ford management had little enthusiasm for the 1949-’51 Lincolns especially the ‘water buffalo’ Cosmopolitan. They were the last Lincolns styled by E.T. Gregorie with Edsel Ford during the early development before his untimely passing. Given Ford’s precarious financial status at the time, all efforts were directed toward the 1949 Ford which was make or break for the company. The styling of the Mercury and Lincoln were definitely secondary and tertiary considerations.
As for the “Free-Flow Styled” 1948 Packards, it was a heavy disguising of the ’41 Clipper body. It was done for expediency and assumed cost-savings which turn out not the case after Briggs got done wringing out Packard who was totally dependent upon them as they had turned over all their body-making to Briggs by this point. Briggs gave them no break on tooling costs. As a hugely compromised design, in a streamlined theme popular at the time, its styling appeal wore off quickly, By the time the 1950 23rd Series were introduced in November 1949, dealers were already screaming for an all-new car. Those months until the new 1951 24th Series were introduced were very long ones during which masses of Packard dealers dropped their dealer franchises. Consider this: Packard was the only carmaker peddling a restyled 1941 car for model year 1950
Well the fact was the 1948-49 Cadillac was conservatively styled and not really making any knew styling grounds. While the bathtub style eventually became a be a dead end, there was very strong initial interest from the market place. am sure GM was worried when other manufacturers were making big gains. Even as a Kid, I always though the 1948 C-bodies and the 1949 A-bodies looked “old fashioned” compared to the the slab sided Fords and the bathtub Lincolns. Based on the evidence I have collected, the C-body a crash redesign for 1950 supports that GM wanted to make a quick drastic change in styling.
The two styling themes of that era, futuristic bathtub or conservative 3-box with vestiges of rear fender lines, was the industry groping its way through a stylistic minefield trying to determine which had appeal for the future. Attenuating factors such as the seller’s market obscured which would win out. The 1948-’49 C-Body and follow-up 1949 A-Body threaded that narrow passage between futuristic enough and conservative enough, neither the extreme of the Nash Airflyte nor the stylistically moribund Mopar. GM really had nothing to fear, simple saturation by the 50% of the market they sold then de facto enforced what would be the dominant styling trend.
“simple saturation by the 50% of the market they sold then de facto enforced what would be the dominant styling trend.”
Thinking about it, the only thing that made the sleek and elegant school of design of early postwar GM look normal was the extended run of Chevrolet from 49-52. Huge numbers of those things were on the street for years. Otherwise, what would there have been but a 1 1/2 year (or less) run of Buick-Olds-Cadillac which would have really made those cars stand out as oddities. I think Virgil Exner’s groundbreaking 47 Studebaker may have been more influential in GM’s early styling than is admitted. The 48-49 GM cars took that direction and improved on it whereas everything else in the industry essentially ignored it and went a different direction. Look how odd the shape of the Stude looked by, say, 1950-51 (even ignoring the bullet nose).
I am not buying that Cadillac was reacting to Lincoln and Packard styling. And by the time they could see Lincoln’s 1949 sales spike (almost certainly a function of getting an automatic transmission and losing the awful V-12) Cadillac would have been working on the 52 models.
I do think that the big bold look was seen as the future. The sleek, elegant school of styling of the 48 C cars and 49 A cars was probably seen as a stylistic dead end because the only other postwar car I can think of styled along that vein was the 47 Studebaker.
The influence of Lincoln and Packard on the 1950 redesign is from Thomas Bonsall who is also well versed in the history of Packard and Lincoln. Maybe he stretched the truth a bit, but I have no doubt that both cars had some influence on Cadillac and its styling direction. And who knows when Cadillac actually first saw these designs? Regardless, he is one of the better historians I have read, and he relies on many primary sources, such as direct interviews with former employees and records from manufacturers. I have no reason to question the validity of his claims, It should also be noted that the 1949 Lincoln had a long model year and was actually introduced on the market place not long after the late arriving 1948 Cadillac.
We see that the earliest styling proposals for the 1950 Cadillac still have elements of the 1948-49 body, but it eventually moves away from that. Also note that the 1950 Oldsmobile styling proposal has a Frazer in the background as a comparative. GM styling was clearly influenced by the “bathtub” or “Big Bold” styling, and their 1950 B-C Bodies show a movement in that direction compared to the conservative 1948-49 cars. The big change that GM styling made was the low fender line, giving it’s cars a distinctive look over it’s competitors. The 1950 styling does seem to be somewhat of a crash program, so obviously something influenced GM to switch gears and go in a new direction in a hurry. If it were not influence by other styling trends, why the sudden change?
While I am sure the new engine and automatic transmission had a big influence on Lincoln sales, I think it is unreasonable to say the new styling didn’t have a significant effect on sales as well. And while Packard had a dated body, it’s styling appeared new and fresh, probably enough to fool most customers into believing it was all new.
I certainly have no facts to start an argument with Tom Bonsall. If Cadillac was, in fact, looking over its shoulder at Lincoln and Packard in 1949, shame on them. To call them both also-rans in the luxury field by 1949 is to be charitable. Were they so insecure of their stylistic choices that they would look there for inspiration?
You are right to point out that the lowered fenderline of the 1950 GM big cars finally hit the right note on the bold or bathtub school of design. The earlier versions (Frazer, Nash, Packard, etc) with their high fenderlines made them look bulbous and unwieldy. The GM cars were certainly big and broad-shouldered, but that lower fenderline really lightened the look enough to make it work.
Whatever caused GM’s abrupt change in styling direction from 1948 to 1950 it is a shame. I have always found a beauty and elegance to the first version of the C cars of 48-49 (Cadillac in particular) that went completely missing from the 1950 redesigns. Sort of like the transformation the Lincoln Continental went through from 1941 to 1942.
JP, I really appreciate your discussion on this topic. I too have nothing to question Bonsall’s expertise, which is why I went with what he said in this article. I re-read his information on the 1950 redesign, and he essentially says there are two schools of thought. The first is that Cadillac redesigned the car to “out spend” the competition. He dismisses this, as he describes that Ford was “spending like a drunken Sailor” to try and catch up to GM. He also lays out how Lincoln actually likely spent more money during this era than Cadillac.
He essentially states that GM abandoned the slab sided bathtub styling initially examined by Hershey. And that the new 1948-49 C-Body was really more of conceptual derivative of the styling language that from the 1941 cars, and really dates further back to Bill Mitchell’s 1938 Sixty Special. He cites that during the early 1940’s most of the other car companies fell-inline with GM’s styling, with the exception of Ford (which he calls preludes to the bathtubs). However, things took a different path with the Hudson, Kaiser, Frazer, then Packard, Lincoln and Mercury, all followed a new design path, that was different from GM. There was a shift.
He states that all of these “radical postwar” designs that appeared at virtually the same time, were all enjoying early success. He argues that this was likely deeply unsettling to those at General Motors, and is a likely a big part of the reason for the big change in styling.
The 1948-49 C-body program was 70% paid by Buick, 16 percent by Olds and 14% by Cadillac. So the 1949 Buick was a very expensive car for Buick, with such a short life span. And for GM to make such a big change again in 1950, in particular Buick, I would tend to believe that there was a major change in direction to justify this expense.
Essentially he states the 1950 crash program was to bring the cars more in line with the perceived sudden shift in design in the industry. So maybe the way I worded it in my article makes it seem more directly related to Lincoln specifically. but in reality it was more of the influence of the industry as a whole. I did mention the other makes going down this new school of styling, but like I said, maybe I could have done a better job writing that section.
And while Packard was definitely past it’s prime in 1949, I do think that the 1949 Lincoln was a success at the times. Lincoln finally re-entered the higher priced field with the Cosmopolitan and it sold almost half of it cars in that price field. Lincoln sales for 1949 were not far off Cadillac, with a total of about 73K cars, compared to Cadillacs 92K. That was a massive increase for Lincoln.
Thanks for the additional clarifications, Vince. They are consistent with my own internal deliberations on the subject. I’ve speculated a number of time in various posts as to just what happened with the new ’48-’49 C and A bodies. meaning, why they look so much like evolutions of their predecessors instead of being truly new.
Clearly Earl reacted too conservatively after deciding not to build the Interceptor. It was something of an overreaction. But when GM saw what everyone else was doing in ’48-’49, it does not surprise me that it scared GM. There was no way for them to know just how successful the new pontoon look was going to be. And as you point out, Lincoln had a very good year for them in 1949.
I agree with Jim that the ’48-49 C cars were handsome, but they were very conservative, which may explain why Jim likes them so much 🙂
As to the actual styling of the ’50, none of the renderings Vince posted actually predict the new greenhouse six-window style that was used for the long C body. But this image below does, in the model in the center. It’s one of several models built, possibly in 1946 or even earlier, and it shows a styling evolution towards the full-glass canopy one in front of it.
My point is that the Interceptor roof style was just one of several concepts that had been worked on previously, and both were resurrected for the ’50 restyle; the Interceptor roof for the short-cs, and the one below for the long-Cs.
it must have felt pretty crazy for the stylists: forwards, backwards, and then pick up what had been abandoned and use it again.
After reading Paul’s recent article on the 1947 Frazer, I wonder if it was a more significant influence in GM’s 1950 restyle. While bland, the Frazer did have advanced styling for 1947 and was the first car that really adopted the pontoon slabs sides well. It was also pretty successful out of the gates. I noted in the article above that a Frazer is one of the comparators to the 1950 Oldsmobile styling proposal. So perhaps the early success of this new independent did help GM decide to do the sudden change in their design language. Whatever the reason, GM clearly made a quick and sudden shift from 1948 to 1950 in its styling language.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1947-frazer-manhattan-the-last-domestic-assault-on-detroit-until-tesla/
Thank you all for the great feedback and discussion. This article was a lot of work, but I enjoyed writing it.
keep ’em coming
Absolutely fascinating reading, well-researched, and with great photos and drawings to illustrate your text Thanks so much for posting.
My great-grandfather, Fred Pyper, worked for Buick (after stints at Lozier and Packard) from the 1920’s through 1953 as a master mechanic, was twice significantly involved in retooling Buick’s assembly lines for WWII and Korea, and I’ll bet he knew all those measurements by heart.
I’ll send this to my dad, who’ll be tickled to read it.
What fascinates me is how GM was able to do things like extend decks, while keeping the lines smooth and able to match up with door skins and bumpers without kinks or corrections. The cars look almost identical, except they’re big, bigger and biggest.
A source useful to understand what makes used what bodies is found in the glass interchange books. I was fortunate to find one years ago, the part number interchanges quickly reveal what was and wasn’t shared. Look for a copy, fascinating reading.
“The 1950 body interchange program resulted in GM reducing costs and simplifying its product line.” And, I feel sure that by having relatively few body types to deal with GM managed to keep quality a high (for that era) levels. There is nothing like the learning curve with thousands and thousands or repetitions to teach how do do something really well and very efficiently.
Excellent point. GM’s quality at this time was top notch.
Having drawn these cars as a design exercise over the years, I’ve noticed the ’48-’49 C-Bodies were largely the ’42 Buick Super and Roadmaster sedanette and convertible theme with the fender-line raised, the body sides finessed to slip behind the rear fenders. The concept was first seen on the ’41 Cadillac ‘Duchess’ Fleetwood Custom formal sedan for the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.
Mister Earl, to his credit, may have simply had an epiphany: the Interceptor was butt-ugly! A fully envelop body was where future styling explorations were headed but presenting such as an appeal, not repulsive, package was proving difficult judging by period design renderings. Falling back on an evolutionary concept was the safe and intelligent path, certainly doing nothing to impede Cadillac’s robust sales momentum was a major consideration.
Jump to early 1948, Studebaker had demonstrated an attractive envelope body was possible, followed by the Hudson step-down and the Lincoln-Mercury line. Nash Airflyte took the concept a bit far but still enjoyed good acceptance, all signaling GM could safely join in too.
So, the basic body structure was paid for, elimination of the separate rear fender was the first consideration, making it a continuation of the through fender-line easy. Misterl, pre-war had held that high hood lines implied powerful engines, lowing the fender line aided that look.
At the rear quarters, he had seen how the lack of a rear fender emphasis detracted from the others, rendering them bulbous. The slight kick-up blending into the rear fenders added visual interest. For Cadillac, it set up one of its best styling features: a graceful ogee curve, rising at the vertical ‘belt’ gently falling then suddenly rising again for the tail-fin light.
The final motivation for the 1950 restyle was faith the public would embrace the open, airy, hardtop greenhouse. Curved glass technology was progressing very quickly at the time, allowing visibility only dreamed of before. The 1949 98-Riviera-Coupe de Ville were a sensation, bringing that elegant theme to the complete sedan line as well could only be a winner.
Misterl was correct on all hunches, if others such a Lincoln and Packard had influenced him, it was only to let them explore that avenue first before GM took it to the next step and trounced them in the sales arena even more.
The 1955 Chrysler cars as I heard are revisions of the 1949-54 designs same with GM.
A little early twinge of what would become Grosse Pointe Myopia in Olds’ adoption of the OB body – in hindsight they should’ve kept at least one two-door post model (coupe or sedan) on the A-body for those buyers who wanted a light, fast Rocket 88, along with the station wagon which would be a growth segment they’d spend several years in the early/mid ’50s shut out of.
I continue to maintain that the Hot Rod Olds 88 was more accidental than intentional. It might have appealed to the small but growing demographic who appreciated performance, but they wasted no time moving to a bigger and more substantial looking car as soon as there was a body available to use.
The use of the A body for the non-98 Oldsmobiles was an emergency measure – it was that or nothing. Buick made the other choice and did not field a Special for pretty much all of 1949. Which with Olds’ much lower overall volume would not have been a realistic option.
My point exactly, they didn’t know what they had and failed to capitalize it while the moment-and product-was hot. The OB-body 88 was far from a Deadly Sin but if you know where to look you can see the seeds being planted.
I don’t know if the 1949 Olds A-body was an “emergency measure”. Maybe their hand was forced once they learned of the Fisher body plans for fewer body shells, but I suspect that Olds was planning to use the smaller A-body anyway. I’d suggest Olds probably had an A-body Olds in the works for some time to meet the introduction deadlines for the 1949 MY. I’d say that Buick producing the old B-Body Buick Special until December 1948 was an emergency measure, along with the early August 1949 introduction on the 1950 B-body Special (C-minus is JPC lingo).
I think once it was decided that the proposed 1948 B-body was to become the 1948 C-body, this kind of left Buick out in the cold for the Special. No way was Buick going to use an A-body. Initially there was supposed to be a B-body and D-body variation of the 1948 C-body released in 1949. This was squashed at the last minute when it was decided the 1950 cars would undergo a heavy styling revision. This was the sudden change that resulted in Buick taking the aforementioned measures of the Special, but had no effect on Olds.
I still believe that most of these changes were as a result of Sloan dictating cost savings in the post-war market. Reducing the body structures and using a common body shell for more models was a smart move, especially with how many variations GM could make on the same basic shell.
If Bonsall’s theory is correct, and the 1951 OB body was supposed to be the new A-body, Olds moving the 88 to the OB body shell made a lot of sense, especially if Chevrolet and Pontiac followed suit. Bonsall says that Chevrolet and Pontiac could afford the body shell, which I interpret that the body shell became too expensive. Meaning it would be difficult for Chevrolet and Pontiac to make a profit on it, especially with there smaller margins. However, this did provide the opportunity for Buick to jump the OB body to bring the Special down to a more reasonable size.
Will 1953 Cadillac Coupe quarter panels bolt up to a 1953 Buick Roadmaster Coupe? Will the body lines on the doors match up? Would you have to add the 53 Cadillac doors to complete the transformation?