We build cars to sit in, not to pee over. Chrysler Persident K.T. Keller’s delicately-chosen words resulted in boxy tall-boy sedans out of sync with the market, leaving Plymouth drowning in the toilet. Ironically, Keller turned out to be decades ahead of his time, but in the early fifties, longer, lower and wider is what moved the metal. The pug-like ’54s were a dud, and the market was pissing on Plymouth, washing it out of its perennial third place sales rank all the way down to fifth. Chrysler’s whole future was now in the hands of its bankers and Virgil Exner, recently installed as head of Styling. The task facing Exner was Herculean; bring Chryler styling up to date for 1955, the company having hocked itself to raise the $100 million bucks to do it. Not only did Exner pull it off, but he may have even overshot by a year.
First, we’d better take a quick glance at what almost sunk Plymouth. The ’53 and ’54 redesign were an attempt to spruce up the very long-in-tooth 1949 – 1952 models (CC here). For what it’s worth, Exner had some sort of hand in these, but let’s not hold it against him. They were just too short and stubby compared to the competition. Pugs were out; the longer, lower race was on, and Plymouth was left behind.
1947 Studebaker by David Saunders
Previously, Exner had a hand in the 1947 Studebaker, although somewhat controversially. He was pulled out of the Loewy team, and offered the chance to do his own version, in secret. Technically, his design won, but it was really just a variation of the basic body shape that had already been mostly locked in by Loewy’s team. Exner’s main original contribution was the front end, and frankly, it’s the weakest part of that otherwise bold design. No wonder Loewy redid the front end for the 1951.
1954 Ghia Chrysler Special
We can’t do a whole retrospective on Virgil Exner here, but after Studebaker, he was given an Advance Styling Studio at Chrysler, which resulted in a stream of (mostly) Exneruberantly marvelous concept and limited-production cars, the result of a most holy alliance with Ghia. Now just who was wagging the tail in that relationship has been a source of some controversy. Regardless, the most prominent thing to come out of that was that “classic” grille, which Exner would draw on repeatedly.
But one thing is fairly clear: that grille first showed up on the Plymouth XX500, which was a 100% Ghia design, and started the whole cross-Atlantic relationship. And why have I taken this overly long detour to Italy? Because as we consider Exner’s 1955 Plymouth and his other cars, it might help to remember that front ends weren’t exactly a strength of his, except when he could fall back on his beloved classic grille.
Well, there’s no sign of that here. Instead, we have a rather odd floating bar, and a rather heavy one at that. Obviously shooting for some visual continuity with its predecessor; an old trick when the rest of the car is all-new. Too bad.
It isn’t really a grille at all, but more like a wide tongue with an ailment slightly protruding from the otherwise empty maw. Just needs some lipstick on that upper lip…
Ironically, the ’55 Chevy (CC here) has a decidedly Italianesque eggcrate grille. And of course, that won’t be our only comparison to the winner of the ’55 sales race. So we’ll give one to the Chevy for the grille, but look at how tall and blunt its front end is overall. And right here, we begin to see how Exner was in many ways one step ahead of both GM and Ford in 1955.
Now saying he was ahead of the 1955 Ford is not quite as an easy proposition to make as the boxy Chevy, since at first glance the the Plymouth and Ford are rather similar.
But take a closer look at the overall proportions and stance in comparison to the Ford, it really does show the Plymouth’s advanced aspects, subtle as they may be, or not. The Plymouth may not really be any lower, but it sure looks it, and has a horizontal fluidity and a gently sloping nose that simply says: I’m one year ahead of you two. The nicely faired-in headlights only bring the point home further. And that forward sloping line of the leading edge of the front end of the fender is a giant step alone, vastly more integrated than the Big Two’s bug eyes, and strongly hints at things to come in 1957.
Now I will admit that the station wagon perhaps shows the 55′s lines most advantageously, which may be odd, given the utilitarian status of wagons then. The sedan,
and even the hardtop coupe; well, I’m grappling with this one here, because I have conflicting responses to the ’55 Plymouth. They’re not as overtly “attractive” or “cute” as the Chevy and Ford in certain respects, like that much-less-than-stellar side treatment on this coupe here.
But if you can get past that, and focus on the poise and proportions of the design below the baubles…it keeps telling me the same thing: I’m one year...Maybe a stripper wagon will show that better. Mostly.
How about the Business Coupe? As plain and unadorned as it gets. And yes, this was a genuine business coupe, with a flimsy removable back seat, and no roll down windows (Zachman!). And yes; it’s working for me; the ’55 Plymouth wants to be au natural, to really show off its body-in-the-bare; a nudist at heart. Or maybe that’s just me, because I know the hardtop is the one that ’55 – ’56 Plymouth fans rave about. But I’m a contrarian, and never liked much make-up on women either; give me natural beauty. The Plymouth doesn’t wear its baubles well.
Maybe I’ve lost you by now; if not, let’s throttle back the emo a bit, and talk engines. Ironically, Plymouth rather played down the new Hy-Fire V8 engine. Not one mention of its horsepower anywhere in the brochure. The 241 inch version made 157 hp, and the 260 incher belted out 167 hp (gross, on both accounts). A Power-Pak was offered later in the year to address the performance image Chevy was making hay with: a four barrel carb and dual exhausts upped the ante to 177 hp.
Maybe one reason Plymouth was a bit low-key is that these engines were actually built by Dodge, at a time when the divisions were still proud of their own engine plants and such. And Plymouth was so deeply associated with its thrifty and sturdy sixes. Plymouth’s own V8 came on line in 1956.
These are the Polysphere V8s, an engine that tends to be a bit over-rated by its fans. It was a well built and rugged-enough motor, but Chrysler’s attempt to create a semi-hemi with a single bank of rocker arms to cut costs never quite lived up to its hype and promise.
The hemi was too expensive, but Chrysler was so invested in the hemi-thing, that it seemed to make sense at the time. But look at those combustion chambers, that’s not anywhere near a real hemisphere. Nor a wedge either. When this A-block finally got Chevy-style wedge heads, starting in 1964 with the 273, it not only became substantially lighter and narrower, but a better and more efficient performer too. Some Chrysler engineers have admitted as much, that the poly head was a blind alley, with neither of the advantages of a proper hemi nor a wedge. But the poly 318 labored on until 1967. Live and learn, by trial and error. Or just imitation.
The result was decidedly middle of the field. Contemporary tests consistently had the Chevy tops in acceleration and economy, and the dullard Ford Y-block at the bottom in both categories, despite its biggest displacement. Handling? A bit on the soft side, not quite up to the Chevy either, but not bad.
Well, someone took engine matters into their own hands with this car, and in admirable style. A healthy 383 four-barrel has been transplanted, along with a matching Torqueflite three-speed automatic. I found this exactly an hour or two after the owner arrived in town with it, having just bought it in Tacoma for $4200. He said it was very happy bopping along at 75 – 80 mph on I5. Undoubtedly. Fits so nicely too, as the 383 B-block probably is no wider, if less so, than the wide 241 inch poly Hy-Fire that it replaced.
Now Exner was known for a certain inconsistency and eccentricity, and it plays out in the Plymouth’s dash. It was getting late, so my pictures aren’t very good, but you can see a rather symmetrical aspect to it, with the round radio speaker grille on the right edge matching the round speedometer. Just one very silly problem:
Here’s the driver’s side with speedo, and the ammeter and fuel gauge.
And the engine temperature and oil pressure gauges are now on the passenger side: brilliant! All for the sake of symmetry! Needless to say, that was quickly changed for the ’56s. But what were they…never mind; I’ve long stopped trying to understand what fueled Exner’s brilliant and foolish idiosyncrasies.
Maybe Plymouth already knew they had a an issue on their hands, because the brochure tries to make lemonade out of piss: spreads its dials across the width for maximum visibility
Oh yes: and richly textured to eliminate glare. That speedometer was so notoriously prone to glare, Plymouth added some dark texture to its top chrome ring mid-year. And Popular Mechanix was advising folks how to rig a little plastic hood over it to avoid seeing the speedo in the windhield at night. Heads-up display, indeed.
Another 1955 Chryler innovation was the in-dash selector for the automatic transmission. Now that was just the first shot over the bow in Chrysler’s quixotic efforts to get the automatic shift lever off the steering column. In 1956, they moved on to the famous push-button selector, until they threw in the towel about ten years later. Once again, Chrysler was ahead of its time with the dash-mounted selector, as some minivans and such now have them. Makes sense, actually.
This wagon obviously once had a three-on-the-tree and overdrive. So where’s the quadrant for the Torqueflite?
There isn’t one. The manual column shifter has been adapted to goose the Torqueflite. You shift by feel was the owner’s succinct response. Works for me. In fact, all too well. And a very effective anti-theft device at that. I’m falling in love with this wagon gear by gear.
The upholstery is hiding under a blanket, but the door trim gives us some indication. Molded plastic door panels? No less than four sheets of vinyl and/or fabric were cut in the upholstering of this door.
The back seat folds in a way that also has come back in style . I’m not exactly sure, but I think starting with the ’57s, most big American wagons had their rear seat backs just plop down on top of the seat cushion, generally resulting in a slanted floor there, unless one was hauling concrete bags or such.
Let’s check out the state-of-the-art of tailgates in 1955. It wasn’t 1960 back here yet. The solid latch below the rear window is turned to lift up the upper section.
Then one reaches in and has to pull both of those handles to release the lower tailgate hinges. Yes, we’ve come a long way back here. But then all of this still works like new, although a touch of lubricant would be welcome in those slightly arthritic joints. How well will the fob-operated electric tailgate on your minivan work when it’s 55 years old?
Here’s the spring-loaded upper tail-gate hinge. No hydraulic strut to wear out every few years. Or is that better now? My Cherokee and Caravan ate those things like snacks.
Dark and out of focus, but let’s make this scenic tour complete, and show you the lever that has to be flipped down over the top of the lower tailgate hinge to secure it. I can just see keeping my hands off that if I was a kid riding back there.
Are you in love yet? I sure am. I’d take this off his hands in a second for what he paid for it. BTW, that Rambler American is a former CC centerfold (check her out here), but is there strictly by coincidence. It belongs to the girl who rents the downstairs apartment in the house. Eugene!
This old couple sitting there together are straight right out of my early years, when two cars like this graced so many driveways. A big burly wagon for Dad, and a little economy car for Mom. Of course sometimes it was the other way around, but our neighbors in Iowa City had the same kind of combination: a ’57 Olds wagon for him, and a Lark for her. And ten of us kids would pile in the Lark after school on rainy days. Logic? What’s that got to do with it? Or maybe it depended on who was really wearing the pants in the family.
If you wanted a third seat, it was a bit of an afterthought: a lightweight removable seat. And no well for the feet. Oh well. I mean, oh hell.
Back to my growing feelings of love: Patina? Check. Manual steering? Check? Unassisted drum brakes? Check. Do you know how nice a 383 sounds, chatting through twin pipes? A love song indeed. Or more like a siren song. Time to back away…
Hey, I’m young at in heart, if not in body. And I’m working on a similar shit-eating grin, if that’s what it ’55 Plymouth ownership entails, or requires. I’ll even hold my hands up like that in whatever gesture that is. It was that long?
Before I forget, the ’55 Plymouth, like the whole new ’55 Chrysler line, did the trick. Chrysler stock jumped when they were unveiled. Plymouth numbers weren’t great for the ’55 MY, because of production snafus, but 1955 calender year sales exploded, to a record 743k units, a high that wouldn’t be seen again for some time. By 1956, Plymouth was working its way back up the sales rankings. And Exner was hard at work on his next great leap forward, the Suddenly It’s 1960 1957 Plymouths.
But before we reluctantly say goodbye, let’s take a look at one more detail. Chrysler’s ’55 lineup was generally considered highly up-to-date, but it did get some criticism for not having a proper wrap-around windshield, like GM had. Of course, with the attendant knee-banging dog-leg as one entered. Another dead-end, and props to Exner for never jumping on that one. But the ’55s had a lovely windshield: just enough wrap-around for good vision, without the goofy optical warping that the GM and Ford wrap-arounds caused. And trimmed so nicely too.
a ’58 Dodge, ride height exaggerated
So here we come to the painful reality: the ’55 – ’56 was in may ways a much better real-world car than the excessive ’57′s; longer, wider and lower they may have been. Yes, praise Almighty Exner that he did what he did, for our amusement’s sake anyway, although the results were no amusement, throwing Chrysler back into the next perpetual crisis.
But for a couple of years, the sun shone brightly; and dammit,wasn’t being one year ahead of the competition good enough? Give folks a year, and they’ll want three. Human nature. Until they get slapped. So just how would a Suddenly It’s…1958 1957 Plymouth have looked?
Saw this in the background of the Yaris photo I didnt click to it being the clue its a long time since Ive been in a live 55 Plymouth but I do remember the 2 left over gauges I assumed it was a mistake during the RHD swap. Nice car I always liked this model but they are getting hard to find here now wagons especially there used to be many sedans in NZ mostly flat head 6s but they must have been popular new.
“Dullard” and “snacks” both made me lol.
This is the kind of piece you’re best at–you’re a story teller.
Today these would be marketed as crossovers, touting its high seating positions as features, and sold like hotcakes. Too bad crossovers did not exist then. Mr. Keller would embrace them fully and with his philosophy, Plymouth probably be king of crossovers.
Actually Paul you would enjoy a trip down the Aussie Chrysler Royal Rabbit hole just to marvel at how they managed to attach some of Exners styling cues onto the old 52 Plymouth Cranbrook and sell them up till the early 60s some are truly bizzare.
Agreed, I saw the yellowy 53/54 and instantly the roof & side window treatment jumped out at me. Add the 55 style front fenders and big fins on the rear and you have a Royal for 1957. The 55 looks to be a significantly wider car than the earlier models, the Royal is quite narrow for its size.
It is interesting that both Ford & Chrysler did not take the US 1957 models to Australia, Ford kept facelifting the 55/56 before getting the 1959 model (skipped the 60-62 also) while Chrysler took until 62 get back in sync.
Very interesting article Paul, as Mr Tactful said above an enjoyable read.
I love, love, love these. My grandma had a 55 DeSoto through the mid 60s. I clearly remember that Powerflite selector sticking out of the dash. I had always understood that the dash shifter was a stopgap. The pushbuttons were coming and there was easier and cheaper to do a hole in the dash than a column-mounted mechanism/indicator.
I like the dash, if not the gauge placement. I love those old gauges that spelled out real words like “amperes” and “gasoline” and “temperature”. So why did they have to abbreviate to “oil press”? A question for the ages. And doesn’t that radio speaker look like a big, powerful exhaust fan for a bathroom ceiling?
I also have to agree with you – this car looks best in the lower trim levels. The car had a nice shape, but the two-tone configuration was poorly conceived. Chevy and Ford had such nice two tone concepts, but this car did not. The 56 Plymouth was no better in this respect.
The 55-56 Mopar line has sort of become its forgotten cars. Up through 1954 you had that classic Walter Chrysler/K.T. Keller era of consistently high quality with less inspired looks. Starting with the Exner 57s, Chrysler entered its “modern” bipolar era that zigzagged from stunning highs to crashing lows, with an almost constant reputation for uneven (at best) quality. These cars bridged that gap.
I sometimes wonder what would have happened if (like GM) Chrysler would have taken these cars through 1957 and given the next generation another much-needed year of development time to debut in 1958. GM’s 58s would certainly have carried over until at least 1959, Ford’s 1958 would have been an even bigger disaster than it was, and Mopars could have kept a lot of new customers coming back with properly designed and built cars. We would probably have colonies on Mars and over-the-counter cancer remedies too. Oh well.
Keeping the 1955-56 models in production for another year is an interesting idea. The 1957 models were originally supposed to be 1958 models, but sales dipped for Chrysler Corporation early in the 1956 model year, so the decision was made to move the 1958 models up one year.
Granted, the entire industry was down for 1956 after record-breaking 1955, but Chrysler’s market share also declined. That was probably one factor that led to Chrysler rushing to roll out all-new designs for 1957.
Interestingly, Chrysler quality had been declining before 1957, at least among the “junior” (Plymouth and Dodge) divisions. Both testers and dealers were complaining about sloppy build quality and obvious cost-cutting on the new 1953 Plymouths and Dodges.
A friend who was around at that time told me that, in 1955, the perception was that Chrysler quality took another dip, despite the very attractive new styling. Rushed production on the 1955s didn’t help – supposedly, the corporation had almost a quarter of a million cars on back order by early 1955!
Paul, I almost choked on my coffee when I saw the mustard-yellow 1953 Plymouth!
That brought back a particularly awful memory of one Saturday morning when I was out with my dad paying the bills in the winter of 1961 and we happened to stop by the local Plymouth dealer down the road. Big mistake…
Our family’s beloved 1950 Plymouth was flat-out about done for – it was rusting away before our eyes and dad was practically Fred Flintstone driving it – the front seat was literally falling through the floor! There was a neat 8″ hole in the rear left passenger floor that I liked and imagining relieving myself through it while dad drove, but I was afraid I would be caught!
In any event, dad found a 1953 Dodge and wound up buying it – the single worst car he had ever owned. When we got home – I was about 10 or 11 years old – I went running upstairs telling mom “we bought a car”! When mom saw what dad dragged home, the scene that unraveled was, needless to say, tinged with surprise and anger and disgust, mostly because mom wasn’t there to give her expert opinion, which would have saved us a couple years of misery! It broke down constantly and eventually we had to go through a winter with no heat in that car as dad couldn’t afford to have it fixed – yes, it was a difficult time for us for awhile. Blankets across our laps were the norm.
I realized dad had made a grievous error in purchasing that piece of junk and paid dearly for it with money we could not afford to spend – that is, until they bought the 1955 Dodge Royal Lancer LaFemme a couple of years later, but that’s another story.
Funny – I’d like to own that 1953 mustard yellow and white Plymouth, if only to imagine myself pleasing dad and atoning for his “sin”! Besides, I think it’s as cute as a button, now.
My father had a 2-door (probably) ’56 Savoy with torqueflite (green/white two-tone). The “pod” for selecting gears was mounted left of the steering wheel near the A-pillar. It did not have a “park” position and that led to a small accident at our house. My father came home to quickly pick up some papers and left the car with the driver’s door open. The car rolled back down the driveway and the door struck a light post (firmly planted in concrete). I can still hear my father saying “I’ve got the only Plymouth in town with a driver’s door that will swing all the way around to the front fender”.
Nearly 50 years later, my sister bought a Chrysler PT Cruiser that had a dashboard painted the same color as the exterior – just like this Plymouth.
Are you sure that it was a Torqueflite? The 2 speed Powerflite was most common in 55-56. I had understood that the 3 speed Torqueflite only showed up in some 56 Imperials, while everything else did not get the Torqueflite until 1957.
The Powerflite only had 4 buttons, IIRC (R, D, N, and Lo). It is my understanding that it was a very good two speed transmission. Actually, the Torqueflite lacked a Park mechanism until some time in the early 60s. My 59 Plymouth required you to punch the N button and yank on the brake. You could tell Chrysler was dominated by engineers in those years. “Why in hell do we need a parking pawl in the transmission when we have this huge drum brake on the driveshaft that is a much better solution.”
You could be correct. I was using “torqueflite” as a synonym for automatic transmission.
On the ’56, the heater controls were positioned to the passenger side of the dash in those small circular openings. I remember operating them as a kid.
Good stuff Paul, you haven’t been that worked up about a car in a while. It really shows in your writing.
I told you I’m swearing off recent GM cars; I’ll leave them for you and others to get worked up about!
On a related note (other things you are passionate about) that dashboard makes me think a bit of a classic tractor dashboard, but in a good way. The trans lever makes me think of a PTO.
Re the “GM” thing, maybe it’s related to my lifelong sports frustration – rooting for the Browns, the Cavaliers, and the Indians. Occasional flashes of brilliance followed by shooting themselves in the foot. (Like GM)
Chrysler is more like an underdog that sometimes gets ignored to the peril of the top dogs. Then poverty undercuts them to the point where they have trouble completing.
You’re younger than me. I was too busy with three kids and a big job to spend much time thinking about GM cars at the time, especially since I was riding in a company car Mercedes W124 at the time. I was a bit of a car snob, as any thirty-something would likely be in the same circumstances.
“I was a bit of a car snob, as any thirty-something would likely be in the same circumstances.”
Ha ha ha! Not me, I was driving K-Cars!
@EdDan: That’s why the call the Browns the Kardiac Kids!
At least the Indians have shown an inclination to doing the right thing…. the Browns and Cavs….. mmmm, not so much.
Indeed, a lot of GM cars were built in a “factory of sadness”
(Literally so with the Vega in Lordstown)
@Educator Dan: Try the Reds!
How about teh Detroit Tigers and Lions?
Regarding the symmetrical dash: That seemed to be common on a lot of cars; everything from the Ford Falcon (symmetric in terms of the metal stamping, anyway) to the VW Beetle and the Jeep Wagoneer. I always assumed it was to allow manufacture of right-hand drive models with minimal changes…for export into those nations which ran on the wrong side of the road.
It was the 1950s-early ’60s, remember. No one knew how the postwar economy would unfold; and if the UK nations and others who did it backwards, took off economically, Detroit and other automotive centers wanted to be ready to provide product.
So I believed, anyway.
The strange part of the symmetrical dash is that, in just a few years, Exner was planning 1962 models with off-center license plate depressions on the trunk, and off-center windsplits on the hood! The 1962 Fury was originally supposed to have two taillights on one side, and one on the other!
Lynn Townsend saw this, and killed that idea immediately, as he – correctly – believed that this would be utterly rejected by customers.
Could have been worse…check out the clays at MrJynx:
http://public.fotki.com/mrjynx/plymouth/plymouth-clay-prototypes/page2.html
Hard to imagine in hindsight, but it was not 100% obvious how to deploy dual headlights. Putting both high beams right in front of the driver does make a certain sense.
These cars were exported RHD to NZ it made conversions easy
Paul, Fascinating story on a transitional car — you’re right – Exner really turned Plymouth around with these cars. My Dad had a 56 Savoy two-door hardtop (dark green with the white Belvedere sport tone). The sport tone was an option for the Canadian Savoy, which ours was. A couple of points. Hard to believe, but I think the 56 Plymouth was actually a longer car than the 57. Rust was a real issue with these cars – just like clockwork, the front fenders on ours rusted out every spring and had to be repaired. The car was basically junk when we traded it for a new 1962 Pontiac – a beautiful car but that’s another story. Also, in your story you mentioned a 55 Olds wagon – could it have been a 57? I don’t think Olds made a wagon in 55.
It’s true – the 1956 model was longer than the 1957 model.
Perception isn’t always reality. And thast does explain why this car comes across like a low-end Chrysler (except for the front end), in its feeling of heft and size. It presents itself as a quite substantial car indeed, unlike the much more delicate-seeming ’55 Chevy.
And yes, a ’57 Olds wagon.
I absolutely love these cars! Personally, I like the higher fins on the ’56′s, except on the wagon, where I think the lower fins of the ’55 look better. The “tongue” in the grill was less pronounced on the “56′s also. 75-80 mph with manual drum brakes, huh–brake early, but not often! Here’s a picture of the front of the ’56.
How about a convertible? I posted this ’56 to the Cohort a couple weeks ago. It was at an AACA regional meet in 2009.
I agree that the styling of the 1957 Chrysler products caused the 1955-56 cars to be largely forgotten after a few years. It was a loaner 1955 Windsor hardtop that taught me in 1964 that 1950′s Chrysler products might be worth investigating, and that led to a whole procession of them over the next thirty years. Oddly enough none of them was a 1955 or 1956 car, except for a 1955 Dodge that I owned for about a week and a half, which was not as long as it took to track down a good title so I could actually transfer it to the new owner.
My dad’s first car was a ’53 Plymouth bought used in 1957. Liked it so much he got another a year or so later. But sold it when married my mom and got her ’60 Rambler.
When I look at old pics of it, it looks like most other early 50′s cars. Upside-down bathtubs, to me. But he knows that era of cars well, since he worked in Auto Theft recovery in 50′s.
With respect to folding seats, I recall the ’63 Chevy wagon had a bit of sheet metal attached to the seatback (with piano type strip hinges) that made the floor continuous when the seat was down. As memory serves, it had some kind of over-center action that helped to keep the back flat against the cushion. It’s been a lot of years, so I’m not sure I have it right. No recollection as to how the 58 Chevy wagon folded.
Big fan of mopar early models. From 57 until the 68′s came out, not so much so.
An early plymouth with a six probably will never die. Thinking of the postwar models with the flathead. Just to be different I suppose.
From 68 on I generally liked their looks better than ford or the general but never trusted them enough to buy but one. A 69 coronet. Liked it a lot but those of most of my friends kept breaking.
I love this car. I’ve always been a fan of 1950′s design but I have hated the engines and transmissions most of the 50′s era cars were equipped with. I’ve always wanted a 1950′s car but with an engine and transmission swap from at least the late 1960′s into the stock body. No chrome, no lowered stance, no billet, just a clean stock look with an upgraded drivetrain. I’d love a stock looking ’55 or ’56 Plymouth Belvedere coupe in blue but with a 440 and a Torqueflite. Would make an awesome sleeper, especially with the stock hub caps.
The rear seat on my ’64 Valiant wagon folds in similar fashion to the ’55.
(I don’t have a picture handy of the seat folded, but it is metal-backed and, when folded, pulls forward a metal span plate that makes the whole back flat).
Everytime I See This Picture ——- I Cant Help but think of my Dad Who replaced his Red 58 Plymouth Suburban StaWag, with a 62 Rambler American in Robins Egg Blue as he called it, I think it was turquoise but close To This Picture of Them Together in the Cover Shot.
That Looks The Back of Our Dutch Colonial in NJ as well. We Never had a Proper garage and 35 years Later They still dont,
but at 800k you’d think it would come with one. it was 75 back then…