(originally posted 8/23/2011) As if Chevy wasn’t generous enough in gracing the autosphere with its superb new 1955s, it topped it with an unexpected boon, the Nomad. Not nearly as practical as the regular wagon, but that’s not what it was about, by any stretch. This was a sports wagon, the first, really, and a car with which to one-up the neighbors, even if they drove a Buick. And in doing so, the Nomad helped collapse the whole Sloanian GM hierarchy, which had already been tottering ever since WW2.
This 1955 ad is both prescient and ironic, since I shot this Nomad at a little local Concours. It’s not for the Nomad exactly, but it makes its point, all too well. Chevys were not going to be the dowdy little poor sisters anymore. And the Nomad drove home that point perfectly.
And here’s the same slogan applied to the Nomad itself.
It was one of those rare cases where a GM Motorama show car became available at your friendly local dealer. Maybe that’s why the 1955’s were called “Motoramic”. The 1954 Corvette Nomad Sport Wagon sat on the old 1954 Chevy frame, and of course had a Corvette-like front clip. But other than that, the production 1955 Nomad was a quite faithful execution of a concept that had been totally untried, anywhere in the world, for that matter. A sports wagon?
It started at $2608; that was more than a Buick Century Riviera hardtop coupe. Calling Mr. Sloan! And one equipped with the excellent new V8, automatic, and a few other amenities quickly vaulted a Nomad’s price above $3,000, a threshold into the mid-upper regions. 1955 Cadillacs started at $3800.
The Nomad got its own distinct upholstery, one that would leave a nice pattern on bare thighs. That was probably a status symbol in its own right: Nomad cellulite.
Needless to say, I’ve spent too much time deciding what my dream ’55 Chevy would be. Years ago, I saw a photo of a stark, all-white ’55 Nomad, devoid of all the additional chrome doo-dads that Nomad owners are so prone to ruining the clean lines of their Nomads with. I thought for sure I could find it, but can’t; this is as close as it gets. I’ll have it with the 195 hp Power-Pak V8, three-speed manual and overdrive. Nothing else could improve it further…except blackwalls and dog dish hubcaps. On second thought, maybe the whitewalls can stay…
But what wasn’t staying anymore was the clearly-defined pecking order Alfred Sloan had imposed on the unruly collection of essentially-independent car makers that constituted GM in the 1910s and early 20s. But that was a different era in so many ways, where each brand could be defined quite precisely by its price. And each brand produced essentially one or two lines of cars, all passenger cars with very little differentiation.
This all started to crumble with the Depression, as the wealthy lost much of what defined them during the go-go twenties. The post WW2 environment was marked by a tremendous rise in living standards for the average American and an incremental top income tax rate of 91% for the high-earners. And cars like the Nomad and Buick’s Special quickly blurred what had once been a clear structure into a free-for-all.
Best. Station. Wagon. Ever.
And yikes. I never realized they were *that* expensive.
I get the ’55 Chevy, and I realise the Nomad is rare and highly prized, but it just doesn’t do it for me. The shape of the door glass and the “B” pillar is wrong.
The swept B pillar is cool it echoes the rear profile.
“those annoying rear corner blind spots are gone…”
wow, there’s an idea that got left in the dust with modern car design
The B pillar gives it a P.U. truck look, imo.
The fact the “B” so wrong for the time is what made it so cool!
The Nomad is one of those cars that you either love it or you hate it.
Jim
Again Paul, absolutely correct.
The ’55 Nomad, more clearly than any other model, signaled the collapse of Sloan’s ladder. I put it that way because I think the BelAir Sport Coupes and Convertibles helped as well…they were miles ahead of their predecessors, not just in their styling and engineering, they were far better optioned as well.
The ’65 Caprice put that train in overdrive. And over at Ford, you could probably argue the ’55 T-Bird was the tip of the iceberg that would derail Mercury. The ’58 Squarebird and ’65 LTD were Ford’s next steps in moving upscale.
I know a number of wealthier people who today would own a Ford, no problem, but not a Chevrolet (except maybe a ‘Vette). If I had to boil Chevrolet’s problems down to one thing, this would be it. Pontiac/Buick/Oldsmobile were simply too strong at one time or the other to allow Chevy an upscale move similar to Ford’s. And when Chevy and B/O/P all began selling redundant X/J/A/G models in 1979, IMHO that was the time to start shutting B/O/P down. But GM’s mid-50’s power play on its dealers – which resulted in today’s state franchising laws – made it prohibitive and expensive to do so.
As a result, it seems like today, Ford has a better brand perception than Chevrolet in the marketplace. And we all know what they say about perception being reality. And now Hyundai/Kia have established themselves as solid entry level alternatives.
I hope GM is able to make it as a four-division company…but I still get the feeling that Buick and GMC are two divisions too many to ensure the company’s long-term health. In every segment where Chevy and Ford compete, Chevy needs to match or exceed Ford’s features and options, the way they did in 1955, and if it bumps into Buick or GMC, so be it.
So many lessons from 1955 that GM never fully learned…
I think the real issue for Buick is that it has nowhere to settle without bumping into Cadillac, which like it or not is basically an entry level luxury make. Although the CTS in size would be a 5 Series competitor, in reality it’s at best a 3 Series competitor in content.
And the line up of Cadillac is rather lacking this particular year with no STS or DTS for traditional Cadillac Buyers and no replacement for about a year. At the same time Buick has expanded to 3 sedans. My fears really lie with some seriously bad product planning at Cadillac. It seems the only reason to choose CTS over a LaCrosse where they overlap in price is for styling and RWD. And the only thing above the CTS for now is an Escalade… That XTS whatever can’t come soon enough.
@Laurence, yes Cadillac is in a bad state right at the moment. The Buicks are a dog and pony show to justify the existence of the brand in China, but they take that lower tier of Cadillac sales out of it’s grasp. Some could argue that the lower tier of Cadillac should be used Cadillacs. You’re correct, the XTS and whatever comes along to be the ‘flagship’ can’t come quickly enough. But it has to be executed well, otherwise, we can go back to re-badging B-bodies…
I could see Buick becoming an iconic company here in the States, but with the realities of CAFE, a Delta-based car (Verano) will be sold alongside the LaCrosse and Regal cars. It will be tough to hold to a tight philosophy when you have the ‘Buick’ of small cars foisted on you by the government (in effect). At least with the current line up, they are all fairly big cars, and there’s nothing that competes directly with the Enclave from the corporate side.
The XTS is supposed to be based on the Epsilon platform. I doubt that it will be a bad car, but I’m also doubting that it will be much more exciting than the current DTS in the long run.
I’m not seeing a “flagship” model when I look at the XTS. At the most, it will best the Lincoln MKS, which isn’t saying much. (And the Lincoln is scheduled for a thorough makeover within two years.)
Yes, I’m something of a Cadillac person, but the XTS (at least as we know it now) ain’t getting done for me. The world barely needs the Lincoln MKS, why does the current regime think we need a Cadillac version of it?
When I was referring to flagship, I’m thinking of the recent Pebble Beach Ciel show car. That’s a flagship. I’m betting (hoping) that it WILL become the next DeVille…
CAFE is averaged across the corporate lineup, not individual brands. No need for miser Buicks if you can sell enough miser Chevys.
Yes, CAFE is averaged across the whole company. But the real money right now is still in CUV’s and light trucks. GM sells a boatload of the light trucks, it barely currently sells enough miser mobiles to make the CAFE numbers. Hence, the miser Buick (Verano), I don’t know if this car will be brilliant or a mistake, yet. I don;t see people calling out for a Buick the size of a Cruze. Or if they are, they’re not doing it in my neck of the woods…
The Verano will either be a stroke of brilliance or a huge bust. I don’t know which yet.
@chas108: I believe you’re correct when speaking of the collapse of the Sloan marketing mechanisms in regards to the 1950’s. With the T-bird and the SquareBird, Ford was collapsing Mercury and taking a chunk of Lincoln, too. At Mopar, Dodge had effectively killed De Soto, while Plymouth sought cover at Chrysler, it couldn’t hide from it’s bigger, meaner cousin.
With Ford today, they have killed Mercury and are either trying to killl Lincoln or or push it upstream; but Ford (division) is like the tumor that overtook the patient. There are so many Fords at every price level now, that even if they spent billions reviving Lincoln, it would have to compete at a much higher (S-Klasse) level that it probably hasn’t been a serious contender in over 50 years.
That said, the same could apply to Cadillac. Cadillac is further ahead in the re-imagining game, but until they can poop out an S-Klasse competitor, no one anywhere other than North America is going to take them seriously.
Due to corporate edict, Chevrolet is re-starting from the ground up, worldwide. I’m starting to see clearer divisions between the makes again, but if the 2015(?) Caprice shows up and outclasses the concurrent Cadillacs, that will be a problem. Of course, all we need is Congress to bonkers again and crank CAFE up to 70+ MPG, and all bets are off. So are light pickup trucks and US domestic road Panzers, too.
The next several years will be very interesting…
Ford had a lot less to lose than GM or even Chrysler if it allowed models from its mainstream brand to usurp the position of the old medium-price brands.
GM’s strength was in the Buick-Oldsmobile-Pontiac trio. Ford had come very close to outselling Chevrolet in 1954, and would do so in 1957. But Mercury was simply no match for the combination of Buick-Oldsmobile-Pontiac.
Over at Chrysler Corporation, Plymouth did not dominate corporate sales to the extent that the Ford Division did at the Ford Motor Company.
In 1958, Ford tried to meet GM head-on with the Edsel, a repositioned Mercury and a gargantuan, all-new Lincoln – and failed miserably. The car that succeeded was the one that made an end-run around GM – the four-seat Thunderbird. The logical place for that car, however, based on its price and the image it conveyed, was at the Mercury division (which did try to “steal” the car away from Ford during its development process). Ford had no trouble selling it as a Ford…and in the late 1950s, Ford, much more than today, had a reputation as the car for farmers and blue-collar families.
GM eventually responded with the Riviera, which was sold as a Buick. Based on the Sloan structure, Buick was the logical division for the car. This move resulted in what was supposed to be the most prestigious and stylish Buick competing directly with…a Ford!
It’s also noteworthy that, by 1962, Ford Division had set the template for virtually all mass market brands. It offered a full line of cars ranging from the inexpensive, plain-jane Falcon to the luxurious, stylish Thunderbird, all under one banner.
The Ford nameplate didn’t seem to hurt the Thunderbird’s prestige, while Ford dealers were happy to have a full line of cars to sell (which better insulated them from changes in the market – if economy cars were in demand, they could sell Falcons or even Fairlanes; if buyers wanted luxury, they could sell Thunderbirds and loaded Galaxie 500s).
“It’s also noteworthy that, by 1962, Ford Division had set the template for virtually all mass market brands. It offered a full line of cars ranging from the inexpensive, plain-jane Falcon to the luxurious, stylish Thunderbird, all under one banner.”
You forgot the light and heavy trucks and most of all the tractors. My earliest memories of my father is him in a Ford COE that he drove between Pittsburgh and Cleveland on his daily runs.
And in my neck of the woods, every farmer had at least one Ford tractor.
I remember some of the rural dealers around home back in the 70’s would have everything from a Pinto to a 45 HP tractor on the lot…
Try that today!
The comments about “brand positioning”…give thought.
The Nomad was upscale, right? Why wasn’t it a Buick?
Probably…because Buick, or Olds, simply had the wrong image. People who bought the Nomad wouldn’t have been caught dead in a Buick dealership. There was a new kind of buyer materializing…young people who made their money fast; who wanted to flaunt it a little. Unlike, say, the typical professional, who started out near-broke and slo-oo-ly worked his way up. By the time he could afford a Buick, he was of Buick age and views.
Should GM have culled brands early? My gut tells me, not only no, but HELL NO. Why cull brands, as platforms are multiplying like weeds? The problem wasn’t too many brands – that was an asset. The problem was badge-engineering…make an Omega out of a Nova with a few glue-ons and a different grille.
Sloan set up GM with the brands representing income levels. With changing times, that approach was obsolete…what should have been done was sell by IMAGE. Chevrolet was solidly blue-collar. Pontiac should have been college-boy and blue-collar street racer. Olds had a head start with its focus on cutting-edge engineering; and Buick should have stuck with restrained, proven vehicles for the accomplished professional.
What happened, I think, was dealer agitation. Olds dealers saw customers flock to Chevrolet dealerships for a Nova…thought it was lost sales, and insisted the company bring them a Nova clone. Big, big mistake.
GM should have laid down the law; and at the same time, should have allowed more multi-line dealers. No one car company could offer everything anyone could want – not in an age where platforms abounded; where image sold; where the Mustang could be sold to someone who’d never consider a Falcon.
GM had it right in keeping autonomous divisions. Cadillac could offer the engineering Chevrolet, with its focus on numbers, with its cut-costs-to-the-minimum approach could not. The two philosophies result in vastly differing end products; and there’s not only room for both markets but each will be unfilled or satisfied with foreign offerings if GM does not fill demands.
Didn’t Buicks traditionally have an image as a doctor’s car – you know, the Marcus Welby image. I can see him making housecalls in his new Buick, but can’t really imagine him driving a lowly Chevy. Perhaps this is why the Nomad upset things so much, because clearly Chevrolet was stepping outside its price/market range.
“…what should have been done was sell by IMAGE. Chevrolet was solidly blue-collar. Pontiac should have been college-boy and blue-collar street racer. Olds had a head start with its focus on cutting-edge engineering; and Buick should have stuck with restrained, proven vehicles for the accomplished professional.”
What we have now: Oldsmobile long gone, Saturn trash-heaped, Chevrolet schizophrenic, Cadillac marginalized…and Buick, moribund, an old man’s division, spending millions to try and cultivate a youth image…which GM dumped along with Pontiac. We have not seen the end of GM’s woes.
Chevrolet isn’t so much schizophrenic as trying very hard to be a full-line mass market brand like Ford and Toyota, and somewhat succeeding (but getting tripped up by recalls…). Buick exists for China and any North American sales are basically gravy. Cadillac, like all other volume-premium brands, suffers from the myth of German superiority rather than any deficiency in its’ own products.
COOL these Nomads are beautiful rare as here as they were not locally assembled but private imports do exist. There was a metalic green Nomad cruising locally for a while for sale for moonbeam money but its gone so someone stumped up the loot. First sport wagon ? absolutely I can see the bones of the new 6.2litre Holden/Cadillac sportwagon in these.
Question: Where’s Educator Dan’s take on this?
A friend in the late 60’s had a ’57 Nomad and my buddy and I almost had a ’56 for $25.00!
I said “almost” because when we came back to buy it, it was gone. This was suspect, though, as it was out in front of a junkyard and had no title. No engine, either.
We still talk of the “one that got away” now and then!
I always liked these. The Pontiac Safaris were an excess all their own, too!
Hey I love it but I’ve long given up on owning one of these suckers. TOO FREAKING EXPENSIVE now. Actually I don’t truely desire any of the 55, 56, or 57 Chevrolets. Gime a 58 Buick with too much chrome, lol.
“Gime a 58 Buick with too much chrome…”
Dan, my friend, I love how you think!
Well there was a less expensive option to the Nomad. As a poor sailor it was something I could afford ($500 in 1970). That was the two door 210 wagon (mine was a 57). It was a handyman special and made the move from San Diego to Kansas across the california /arizona desert in summer. Fun watching the new wagons with the RV’s pulled over with the heat while my beater soldiered on. If I was smart I would be telling about it as one that I let go but that was the vette. I still have the 57 and I think it is going to occupy a major portion of my time once it cools enough to avoid frying my brain outside. I don’t like stuffing the gas through this thing at 13-15mpg but you only go around once.
Anyway, I still have it and it’s going to start the trek to a covered area and a little rehab this week. It’s not suitable for the modern world as it is. Good timing Paul. I needed a kick in the pants to get started and this article did it.
All of these comments about the position of Chevrolet and Buick make me think about the Buick Lacrosse. In market position and pricing the Lacrosse competes head on with the Taurus and the Avalon. With the Cruze and the Malibu turning into actual desirable and competitive products the Lacrosse with altered styling and no other changes in regard to materials or features would be an incredible Impala and would sell in large numbers. Yet they have to call it a Buick… that really makes me scratch my head.
Perhaps you could do a follow-up on the Pontiac equivalent, the original two-door Safari.
Man, that’s a rare one. I’ve only seen ONE Nomad-based Safari…in my entire life. I actually wondered at the time if it was a custom build.
It would be a good focus…but what’re the odds of even Paul, in his land of cars that never die, will find one at a curb somewhere?
Not good. This Nomad was hardly at the curb either.
There’s a two-door Safari at the LeMay museum in Tacoma, Wash. I didn’t take a picture of it. If I had tried to photograph all the cars, I would have needed about 2 weeks in that museum.
Several things were at work during the time; the depression and world war II were past, the united States was the only major power to come out of the war with its economy intact and people had money to spend. Paul, you were correct to state that with the ’55 model and the new v8 Chevrolet was signaling that it was no longer content to play the Cinderella division at General Motors.
Conspicuous Consumption raised its head; you purchased a more expensive automobile to demonstrate you could.
The class consciousness that GM promoted also affected the divisions at GM; the division managers began moving upscale for status(with vehicles like the Bel-Air and later the Impala and downscale for volume with the Buick Special).
The 50’s saw the beginning of the end of the Sloan business model with the GM divisions poaching in each others territory; but with GM in a sales war with Ford GM executives may have simply turned a blind eye toward it.
This car seems like the ultimate “Bachelor’s Special”….. Yet Even I can only scratch my head @ the idea of a Full Size 6 Passenger Station Wagon with only 2 doors, in this world where even the Tiny Ford Fiesta, Which I think looks pretty crappy, has 4-5 doors.
But I Agree it Looks So Sporty … Ready 4 a Surfboard and Wire Wheels….
I never noticed before how the third window of the ’71-’76 clamshell wagons recalled that of the Nomad, with its wraparound.
Beautiful,I’d take one over a Caddy any day.What a contrast with the ostentatious 58s
That 1958 GM ad said it. Other than Cadillac, which was, well, CADILLAC, the 1958 GMs got more overblown and ostentatious as the “status” of the Divisions went up. GM Styling had truly been blindsided by Chrysler.
Early 20’s would be for example 1923 when:
Chevy cost from just over $500 to not quite $1100.
Buick (in 3 wheelbases) cost from less than $900 to $2200
Oakland was just under $1000 to over $1500
Oldsmobile (two wheelbases) was from $850 to over $2600
Cadillac was over $2800
I see a muddled mess. It does not get better in 1925 except that Chevy is cheaper at the high end. But the middle is still a mess.
Thank you for mentioning Oakland instead of Pontiac for 1923. Pontiac was launched as a sub-brand to Oakland but ended up replacing it.
The Sloan ladder was never a rigid one. Just as Pontiac was a kid sister to Oakland, each GM brand except Chevy would have its own. Buick had the Marquette, Oldsmobile the Viking, Cadillac the LaSalle. Viking and Marquette didn’t last long but LaSalle carried on until 1941, slotted right between Buick and Cadillac and marketed as a more youthful and stylish alternative to the stodgy high-end Caddy, successful enough at one point that GM had to make a conscious choice to keep Cadillac over it.
By the 1950’s, the divisions were operating as much on brand loyalty as they were on the Sloan ladder. You had your Cadillac aspirants, but there were plenty of well-off folks who stopped at Buick and Oldsmobile, believing them to be the best balance of quality and value. And plenty of Chevy and Pontiac adherents thought the same way of their cars. As a result, the divisions each sprouted their own full car lines. A Buick man wanting a compact car for his wife didn’t go to the Chevy dealer, he went to his Buick rep and picked up a Skylark.
Those who think the Nomad would make a great Caddy substitute should find a way to get behind the wheel of a ’55 Cadillac, Olds or Buick and then decide. You got what you paid for back then, and there really was a difference.
Also, people back then were quite aware of the automotive pecking order and no way did a Chevy anything command the notice of a Cadillac. Not even a Corvette, which would later create some confusion of its own, priced in low-end Caddy territory and having no equivalent in any other division.
GM still catered to every purse and purpose, the way they did it just became more complex.
Nomad’s are very cool, especially this one in brown, but still just a chevrolet. Make mine a Pontiac safari please!
I never got the concept of the two door wagon.
Maybe as a salesman car for hauling stuff around ,but as a family station wagon?
No thanks
As Paul suggested…the raison d’etre of the Nomad sport wagon was not the “wagon” but the “sport.”
One plausible use would be to haul surf boards to the beach. Certainly the Nomad was probably not a “family” wagon as much as a sport wagon for someone. On the other hand, for a family with small children, before the advent of seat belts, not having doors in the backseat might have been a good thing.
Exactly. My father bought a two door wagon in ’59 because he was afraid we would fall out of the back seat. It was a Chevy Brookwood, same trim level as Biscayne. The Nomad name was attached to the Impala trim level wagon available with four doors only.
My parents bought a two-door sedan in the early 70s (with seat belts, without power door locks) because my mom was afraid that my brother and I, as little kids, would inexplicably open the door and jump out while the car was moving. We weren’t that stupid.
After a couple of years of flipping the front seats forward every time we climbed in and out, the inconvenience overruled irrational fear and they got a four-door.
If carmakers had adopted the rear child-safety lock earlier, I think there would’ve been fewer customers for 2-door wagons.
Perhaps fear of children baling out seems irrational, but if Johnny happens be an Evel Knievel wannabe, Mom & Dad won’t get a 2nd chance to adopt countermeasures. There are Darwin Awards for a reason.
Our ’63 Impala wagon had special rear door lock posts that needed the car key to unlock. Fortunately, after starting, the key could be removed from the ignition without killing the engine, but it was sometimes a bother for our parents. It had dealer-installed A/C, so the locks might have been, also.
Not much difference in a Pontiac Safari of those years and the Chev. I agree that the two door doesn’t make much sense. Sometimes I wonder how something schizophrenic like an early suburban. Two doors on the passenger side and one on the drivers side. Probably no sense there. Don’t even know why I like it but I do.
Don’t forget the back door. These things are prehistoric 3 door and 5 door hatches.
I do believe that Buick is currently designed to take on Lexus buyers while Cadillac has a much Germanic appeal. That’s not a mistake. It is calculated and not badly, either. You will not see a land yacht at BMW and you won’t ever see one again at Cadillac either. Meanwhile, Buick is aping the driver isolation of Lexus with sound deadening up the wazoo. Now, whether Chevy is Toyota or not is not really debatable now. They’re not there yet. But that is the goal. Still….wither the Corvette?
You mean GERMAN, not GERMANIC.
Won’t see a land yacht at BWM? Uhh, the LWB 7-series is the length of the DTS and XTS.
Sorry to have to correct.
Sorry but a “land yacht” requires at least a 129 inch wheel base.
Nyeehh…I’d say a modern fullsize car can never have any less than a 110 inch wheelbase (so the 80’s C- and H-bodies just barely made it) but should be anywhere from 115 to 120. “Land yacht” starts at 120 inches.
Oh jee, the LWB 7-series just missed your cut-off at 127 inches. Because 2 inches really matters when we’re discussing 11-foot long cars. Not!
The 1971 through 1976 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham was certainly a land yacht. But the Front Wheel Drive Cadillacs beginning with the mid 80’s certainly were not land yachts for American buyers.
European’s might well call anything bigger than the Volkswagen Beetle a land yacht, I don’t know. Point is that the European standard may be different.
Naw….I’ll go with my original, correct usage of Germanic, used as an adjective.
adjective
1.
of, relating to, or denoting the branch of the Indo-European language family that includes English, German, Dutch, Frisian, the Scandinavian languages, and Gothic.
2.
having characteristics of or attributed to Germans or Germany.
“she had an almost Germanic regard for order”
BMW is a GERMAN brand, not a GERMANIC brand. Germanic is used to describe features of those from Germany, Holland, Norway, etc. Germanic. It’s not used to describe a German car! How do I know? Well, I am a jelly doughnut, in the words of your former president!
(nicht)Richtig: He used it correctly, in terms of its specific usage: “Germanic appeal”. To say “a BMW has German appeal” just doesn’t work as well. Yes it’s a “German car”, but language is all about usage as well as style. Sometimes the rules (at least in English) are not consistent. In this case, “Germanic” is the better usage. That’s how I would use it.
He never said “BMW is a Germanic brand”.
Anyway, it’s a bit pedantic and not worth capital letters, so can we just drop it now, please? 🙂
For those folks who “don’t get” the idea behind a 2 door wagon….
In the early 50s when wagons switched from wood to metal bodies there were a few companies that produced a “low priced” 2 door wagon. Plymouth, Dodge, Ford, Edsel, Rambler come to mind. These were wagon “companions” / equivalents to stripped 2 door sedans. Chevrolet took the 2 door wagon and injected it with a (large) dose of sportiness. Ford would do something similar with the Falcon turning it into the Mustang.
It should also be noted that several car manufacturers built 2 AND 4 door wagons with (pillarless) hardtop styling. At Ford Motors, Mercury sold 2 and 4 door hardtop wagons…even, I think, a few 2 door wood sided Colony Parks. Neither Ford or Edsel ever got 2 door hardtop wagons.
Chrysler would build hardtop wagons into the early/mid 60s, long after Ford (Mercury) and GM gave up on hardtop wagons.
BTW, I knew Nomads were expensive but never knew that the V8 was optional…always thought it was standard.
Finally, another example of what a difference a year makes. The 54 Chevy was a very plain/dowdy car…the 55, wow.
Actually, the Nomad did come with a standard V8. I should have said “optional higher-output V8”.
Howard,
I guess that helps, but only a little.
When I was a kid I built models of the Nomad and I knew it was a favorite with hot rodders and car collectors. Pics of the Nomad would appear in Hot Rod and other mags, therefore, it was cool.
As an adult I have a hard time understanding two door wagons. Perhaps I’m too utilitarian but I can’t help thinking how handy 4 doors would be for stowing/removal of gear, tools, etc.
I have an even harder time understanding “sport” wagons. It’s a contradiction in terms. Is it the lack of utility that makes it “sporty”? If it had actually been a wagon version of the Corvette it might make a little tiny bit of sense.
Finally I have real trouble wrapping my mind around paying a premium price for a “sport” station wagon with limited utility. For that kind of money I’d really rather have a Buick.
Maybe Sloan’s ladder worked better with minds like mine, that aren’t comfortable with blurred lines and meanings.
Since this Nomad thread has been high jacked into a Caddy discussion thread: Cadillac’s continuing use of curves and right angles in their exterior styling continues to leave me cold. Their interiors are copies of Toyota’s and Honda’s. There is just nothing in a Cadillac to “grab” me.
I am quite content with a last generation Lincoln Town Car as MY “luxury car” standard.
I do somewhat disagree with the original premise of this article that a low-volume “halo” model, however expensive, was really significant in the destruction of the Sloan hierarchy in the 1950’s. The low-end Buick was much worse, IMO. Buick was the third best-selling brand for a year or two in the mid ’50’s. My uncle, a young engineer, was one of those many aspirational buyers. His supervisor, or manager above him, should have been a Buick customer in 1955, not a family man buying his first new car.
The Nomad, Corvette and Thunderbird are not that significant in the overall picture, except maybe to build traffic volume in the showrooms.
Well Buick was GM’s low end before World War One. Chevrolet was not part of GM until Durant’s second failed attempt at running GM. After WWI, Buick’s low end was generally near the top end of Chevrolet, or the low end of Pontiac. As I posted earlier, GM’s middle range (Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Buick) was always a mess.
The significance of Nomad/’vette/T-bird is that the model name started to become more important than the brand name. This would be even truer in the ’60s and beyond.
People recognized that the T-bird (and ‘Vette) were a step (or two) up from basic transportation. It didn’t matter that they were made by Ford/Chevy. Once Ford/Chevy figured out that they could sell just about any type of vehicle in just about any price range there was (and is) no need for separate “make” names, dealer organizations, sales/marketing divisions, etc.
IMO the collapse of divisions is not over at GM, Ford, or Chrysler.
These are the creme’ de la creme’ of 50’s wagons. Such clean lines… Me want…
Recently while looking at a friend’s beautiful ’56 Nomad, I wondered who the car was made for. It was stylish, with a high spec interior, though not as practical and a traditional wagon. I decided the target customer was the coolest Mom on the block. Sure she could use it take the kids to piano lessons, but it probably was also used to drive downtown for shopping and to go to lunch at the Country Club.
It wasn’t only Chevrolet moving upscale but the B O P moving downscale trying to get more volume. A good example was the Buick Special which if I remember correctly, appeared in 1955 and was aimed at a demographic that normally felt Buicks were out of their price range.
The wheels on the Sloan model started coming off in the ’50’s and by the 1960’s it was dead. Ford beat GM in introducing new models: The four passenger Thunderbird(personal luxury), the Falcon(compact), the Fairlane(intermediate) and the Mustang(pony car). It usually took GM two to three years to introduce competing versions and when one division got one the others starting pleading for their own. Did very GM division need a compact…or a personal luxury car? None the less, GM continued the charade that the Sloan model was alive and well, long after it had died.
Buick had been offering the Special line for many years — since before the war — although it wasn’t until around 1953 that it started consistently outselling the mid-level Super. 1955 was definitely its big year, though, and it’s definitely true that B-O-P were trying to snag some Pontiac and Chevrolet customers as well as battling one another. I think that was a major reason the mid-price divisions were hit so hard in ’58 with the recession; the kind of buyers who’d been saying, “You know, for just a little more, we could be driving a new Buick instead of a Bel Air,” were warier and (perhaps more important) creditors were less wiling to write loans for them.
The major reason GM had multiple versions of most everything by the ’60s was that by GM standards, a shell selling only 100,000 units or less was small potatoes. Their logic was that it was more profitable and ultimately cheaper on a unit basis to spread the cost around more broadly.
Beyond that, GM management was aware that during the recession, they had a lot of dealers who were freaking out that nothing seemed to be selling (which is why we ended up getting Opels and Vauxhalls at Buick and Pontiac dealers), and so having some hedge against shifts in the market made sense. And of course most of the personal luxury cars were big profit-markers for dealers and for the divisions. I don’t think the Toronado made much money, since it was costly to produce, but the Monte Carlo and E-body Eldorado were enormously profitable.
Buick did bring out a new model, but it was the Century in 1954. This was up market from the Super. In the mid 50’s Buick’s sales increased to over 700,000, but their production capacity was 400,000, so quality control went way down. As a result, during the late 50’s recession, Buick’s sales dropped way below their capacity.
Paul Neidermeyer likes to think that there was a Sloan hierarchy but the only consistent hierarchy that I can find looking at the Classic Car Database is that Chevrolet is at the bottom and Cadillac is at the top. The rest of the line (Buick, Oldsmobile and Oakland/Pontiac) are in the middle. Buick seems to have a model at the low end of this middle while Pontiac did not have a model at the high end of the middle. Oldsmobile seems to shift around after starting off well above Cadillac (1910-1913).
The concept of the hierarchy started with Durant who formed GM after failing to form some type of merger with REO (Ransom Olds).
Fred: The Sloanian “ladder” didn’t come fully into its own until the mid 20s. My Encyclopedia only goes back to 1930, but here are the price ranges of the various divisions for that year:
Cadillac: 3,295 – 8,750
Buick: 1,270 – 2, 070
Olds: 895 – 1,190
Pontiac: 665 – 845
Chevrolet: 495 – 685
Looks pretty hierarchical and consistent to me. 🙂 Or maybe you’re wearing different glasses than I am?
Note the lack of any price overlap from lowest priced to highest price for any of the divisions (except a $20 overlap for Chevy and Pontiac).
This is the “Sloan Ladder” in its classic form. It didn’t exist in the teens (Sloan wasn’t there), and it took some years for him to whip the various companies into divisions, and toe the GM party line. But by the mid-late 20s, this was the result.
I looked at more than one year. One of my earlier posts was for 1923 (data from the Classic Car Database). At that time Oldsmobile’s range is both higher and lower than Buick’s. Chevy’s high end was higher than Buick, Oldsmobile and Oakland.
If we look at 1928:
Cadillac: $3300-5000
Buick: 1200-2000
Oldsmobile: 900-1200
Oakland: 1000-1300
Pontiac: 750-875
Chevy: 500-700
Then 1936:
Cadillac: $1650-9000
Buick: 765-2000
Olds: 665-935
Pontiac: 615-850
Chevy: 500-650
While I see by the late 20’s and mid 30’s there does seem to be a hierarchy, there is overlap with the high end of chevy very near the low end of olds. Pontiac overlaps Chevy through Buick which I think should not have been.
1940:
Cadillac: 1685-6000+
Buick: 895-2200
Olds: 800-1130
Pontiac: 780-1100
Chevy: 650-950
1950:
Cadillac: 2600-4850+
Buick: 1700-3500 (Grandma’s Special was 2500)
Olds: 1600-2600
Pontiac: 1460-2260
Chevy: 1250-2130
Buick does seem to be second, but by 1940 Chevy overlaps the low end of Buick, making Olds and Pontiac superfluous.
By the mid 60’s there is of course the problem that the compact car throws into the hierarchical scheme. But considering only the full size cars and not luxury personal cars (Riviera or Toronado), the Oldsmobiles become more expensive than the Buicks. So now Buick is lower down than Oldsmobile. I have not explored into the 70’s to see if this state of affairs holds up. However this supports my earlier point that the hierarchy is not really fixed.
In my opinion, Chevy should only overlap with Pontiac, Pontiac should only overlap with Olds, Olds can overlap with Buick and Buick can overlap with Cadillac.
Actually, the Super was up market from the Century. The Super had the same engine as the Century but also shared the big C body with the Roadmaster. A ’54 Super sedan listed for $2711, while the Century was $2,520.
For me, the stylish woman in the brochure art suggests GM was targeting it as a car for the wife who has everything rather than as successful- or bachelor-guy’s daily ride. But, who knows?
BTW: I, too, had no idea the Nomad was so pricey (compared to the rest of the Chevy line).
For me, the stylish woman in the brochure art suggests GM was targeting it as a car for the wife who has everything
There’s definitely something to that, given who owned most wagons in those days.
Prior to the early-mid 1960s, station wagons (even basic models from the “low-priced three”) tended to be purchased by wealthy families as a second car/daily driver. The Cadillac in the garage was for Dad’s commute into the city or taking the family to church or a nice dinner. For anything else, they drove the wagon. It wasn’t until the Baby Boom kids got a little older and much greater in number that the longroof became the symbol of middle-class suburbia that it was.
The popularity of the Jeep Grand Wagoneer in the ’80s and early ’90s was very much in that tradition. At the time they were discontinued in ’91 the average income of a buyer was higher than that of Rolls-Royce.
Even after they got all steel bodies, station wagons were pricey compared to sedans. Nine passenger wagons typically listed for more than a convertible.When they were wood, only wealthy families could afford them.
I am amazed at how differently the Nomad was styled compared with the rest of the 55 Chevy line. The full wheel cutouts and the lack of the Bel Air side trim give the car a completely different look. The 56 and 57 models followed Bel Air styling much more closely.
I have always suspected that the Nomad came from the same mindset as the Eldorado and Skylark. Low volume halo cars to bring some Motorama pizazz into showrooms. Chevy certainly knew that the planned Thunderbird was to split the difference between luxury and sport. Maybe the Nomad was a way to offer two distinct specialty cars to Ford’s one.
It does have the rear wheel cut outs, which follows the Motorama Corvette based wagon, but to my eye, seeing the full rear wheel profile gives the Nomad a more truck-like look. It works on the ‘Vette, but (imo) not on the Nomad.
I universally prefer 55s with the rear wheel openings enlarged, and it’s a detail I somehow never noticed being different on the Nomad until I read someone mention it, but I think it’s a huge part of the appeal to me. There’s a little too much bathtub Rambler with the skirted openings otherwise.
I see what you’re saying though, it does have a El Camino with a topper profile to it. But I like El Caminos, so that’s no ding to me.
Selling only around 8,000 Nomads a year, I wonder if these were profitable for GM ?
Nice wagon! Was the Nomad “full size” or rather smaller. It looks shorter than other 55 Chev’s.
The Nomad is also my favorite 50’s domestic hatchback. It’s still baffles me how most Americans have given hatchbacks the cold shoulder. To make my point. Today I brought home a used Shopsmith 500 my Stepfather graciously gifted me. The entire Shopsmith easily fit in my 08 Volvo C30 with room for 5-6 grocery bags. The C30 being the spiritual successor of the P1800 ES (aka the fish van). I like to think the P1800 ES was spiritually inspired by the Chevy Nomad and it’s just right proportions.
Technically the Nomad isn’t a hatchback, it uses a tailgate. Considering the SUV/CUV movement it would seem America has embraced the hatchback with fervored vengeance. I don’t get it personally, I vastly prefer tailgates or barn doors
Agree…and agree again…with XR7Matt.
“It’s a Revolution in the Rear, with more Junk in the Trunk!”
Well, gents! We certainly have much interest and information sparked by this stunning NOMAD. I was enthralled when I saw it in the Chevy dealer’s showroom during new model announcement week on 184th Street and The Grand Concourse in The Bronx. What a car! Definitely it is a halo model to tell even the buyer of a “150” that he was in this league. Long live the beautiful Nomad! Running through so many other makes of autos in your comments is exemplary of our interests. Thanks for great reads! And, Chevy’s 1955 line was a stunner after the dowdy ’53’s and ’54’s. Yes, Dinah, I want to see the USA in my Chevrolet, America is asking you to call.
The eternal “Ford vs Chevy” debate:
1955 Chevy Nomad or 1956 Ford Parklane?
That debate ended a very long time ago, and the winner is blatantly obvious.
Dressing up your cheapest 2 door wagon with a bunch of chrome wasn’t going to make it against one of the most distinctive and unique wagons ever.
Paul: Your 1955 Chevy bias is as strong as my 1956 Ford bias.
Thank you for tolerating (most of the time, anyway) by equally strong automotive opinions.
🙂
*my (not by)
Fat fingers, tiny i-phone icons……..
It’s almost 2021 now, and a crossover world.
Yet, three weeks ago, I bought a 2015 Impala LTZ with everything but the sunroof.
Decked out as it is and with the driving experience it delivers, I’d call it a worthy successor to the spectacular Tri-Fives, the jawdropping ’65, the quality-engineered ’69-’70s and the best of the ’77-up Caprices.
Finally.
While we were at it, my wife replaced her 2011 Equinox LTZ with a 2013 LTZ. Nicer in every way than the older one, even the seats seem more comfortable…plus it has the 3.6 V6 and BETTER FUEL ECONOMY than we ever got with the 2.4 in the 2011.
Maybe in a few years we’ll trade it for a Blazer. Been hearing some good reports from people we know who own one. And now you can turn off the wretched stop/start “feature.”
Chevrolet’s goal today should be to finish what was started in 1955: make the two divisions between them and Cadillac redundant. Then again, as Cadillac goes all-electric, maybe Buick becomes the gasoline alternative to Cadillac while Chevy offers a more value-oriented – but still desirable – proposition with its gas/BEV lineup.