It’s not the first time I’ve said it, but for me, 1954-1956 was the high water mark for Cadillac in the post war era. The ’48-’49s were handsome, but a bit too conservative. Then from ’50-’53, they got too bulgy and fussy for me. And as you know well, I’ve never been a fan of the lower cars that came along in 1957-1959. The ’54- ’56 got it right: Enough length to be impressive without ridiculous overhangs, and enough stature to be imposing. It’s what a luxury car should be. And although I’m generally not a convertible fan, I could make an exception for this one, especially in this lilac color.
Of course the “Dagmars” on the front are ridiculous and over the top, but if you’ve got it, flaunt it.
Here they are in full profile. Pedestrian safety and damage inflicted on the butts of poor little British sports cars was clearly not a concern.
And since I forgot to mention it earlier, I prefer single headlights too.
Safely ensconced back in that vault is a softly-purring 331 cubic inch V8 that was rated at 250 hp in 1955, thanks to a bump in its compression ratio. As my father used to say: Paul, 250 hp is the maximum any car can safely handle. Maybe that’s why I like these so much; I wouldn’t want to be unsafe. Come to think of it, I’ve never owned a car with more than 250 hp. The early influence of parents can be long-lasting.
Now that’s a steering wheel! More like two, actually. Unlike pedestrians, occupants’ safety was being given some thought with that padded dash. The long chrome baton directed the Hydramatic Quartet in the Concerto Automatico in Four Movements.
The seat that dare not be ever sat in.
Except like this, of course.
That delicious bootie has so many fine details.
This license plate “topper” is the icing on this plum cake. “World’s Playground”; a lot more colorful than Eugene’s modest “A Great City for the Arts and Outdoors”.
This is exactly where the fin mania should have ended. Oooh; love those protruding exhaust ports in the bumper. I remember Miss Welch’s ’54 sedan blowing miniature mushroom clouds on cold January mornings. When we were kids, we used to make a point to stand in the warm clouds in the church parking lots while folks idled their cars to warm them up. Smelled good to us. But then we were raised at a time when trucks spewing giant clouds of DDT in the air drove up and down the streets to try to save the elm trees.
I need to end this little brain fart now, and what better way than with a picture of another lover of these. I always knew you were my kind of woman…
Related gawking:
Was the ’55 “Peak Dagmar”? ;o)
And apparently, the owner did not read the instructions from the Maryland MVA regarding the proper placement of his stickers… (sorry… It’s a pet peeve of mine being somewhat of a licence plate geek.)
The Dagmars look so long you imagine they might be aftermarket exaggerations – but nope, a search shows they all looked like that. Amazing, from the perspective of some 60 years later.
proper placement of his stickers… (sorry… It’s a pet peeve of mine being somewhat of a licence plate geek.)
It’s same with people ‘collecting’ the vignette stickers from Austria, Slovenia, and Switzerland. One could see a long band or a big group of stickers on the windscreens.
Wow, it is family Cadillac day. The last new Cadillac my mother’s Uncle Carl bought before he died was a black 55 Sixty Special. Her Aunt Alma kept it around until she replaced it with a new 63 Sixty Special – which I eventually bought for $400 in 1978 after it had seen some (ab)use from her grandsons.
I generally agree that the 55 is a looker, and I normally like big ragtops a lot. But the combo of this paint color, this easter-egg interior and those wire wheels kind of ruin this one for me. What kind of day is it when PN wants a big Cadillac convertible and JPC says no thanks!
“What kind of day is it when PN wants a big Cadillac convertible and JPC says no thanks!”
I don’t know, but I think the weather reports in Hell might be a good indicator.
I don’t see an exact match for this color on the 1955 Cadillac color chart.
It looks like the color that Lincoln called “Wisteria” and offered for its all-new 1956 models.
An excellent point. I had not bothered to look it up but now that you mention it I have never seen anything like it. Nothing in 56-58 either. This is one of those cases where someone goes with a funky color that overwhelms the car. There is so much good in the lines of a 55 Cad convertible but this color won’t let us see any of it.
I assumed it was not an original color from the day I stopped and shot it in rural Maryland. I wasn’t trying to imply it was.
And regarding the color, I rather like it when these cars don’t take themselves too serious. Beats resale red by a long shot. 🙂
“Beats resale red by a long shot.”
Oh my, yes.
As for this lavender, I was just following that provision deep in the CC writers guide that requires that you and I never agree 100% on any car. 🙂
While the color is not one I would choose, I agree with you. Anything different than resale red, basic black, or appliance white on a classic is always appreciated. I believe that Geeber is correct in it being a Lincoln color. I would have preferred the Lincoln’s Bermuda Coral color on this Caddy myself, but bless the owner for going with what they like and not what everyone else thinks is appropriate.
One would have to look at the Trim Tag under the hood. It will give the original color code. Special orders were ‘999’, I believe, and one would have to see the original documents to see what it was painted at the factory, though I suspect it was not unlike Porsche’s ‘Paint to Sample’ option, therefore, an actual record may not be available. One option Cadillac did offer was previous year’s colors on brand new units, and I’ve heard of a 1968 Eldorado factory painted a 1962 color.
It’s missing the rear spats – I wonder if this is through choice.
I wasn’t sure I agreed with you about year, but the last shot convinced me. Definitely a Marilyn fan – if it’s good enough for her…..
I would have to assume it is a work still in progress, as the Cadillac emblem on the deck lid is missing, too.
A small difference that changes the feel of the profile. Without it, the car looks stumpier. What an astonishing colour.
+1. Wonder how popular that Lilac was?
Packard offered it in 1957.
That last photo reminded me of “Santa Baby” by Eartha Kitt.
Santa baby, a ’54 convertible too, light blue
I’ll wait up for you, dear
Santa baby, so hurry down the chimney tonight
Iconic.
Nice Paul!!! would love a real Caddy like this!!!
I would get a 1956, the year Cadillac replaced that dangerous cone-shaped steering wheel hub ornament – in that famous accident Sammy Davis Jr. lost his eye to the one in his 1954 convertible – with a flat design. I agree, these cars were real stunners back in the day, so sleek and modern compared to the ponderous and heavy looking 1950-53 models.
Even though I proclaimed my preference for the 68 Eldo featured today (I like cars with NO headlights, thank you) I can’t disagree with this being the next greatest looking and hands down the most iconic. I think these were perhaps the pinnacle for what was the main line Cadillac while the PLC Eldorado a decade later was a killer encore to the brand’s legacy. If only Cadillac could have somehow bowed out after that.
My granduncle had a barn full of 40s-50s Cadillacs until he passed away, my Dad told me stories about how he’d stash cash in the taillight area of these particular ones that he and the cousins would secretly raid from time to time. I got to see a few of the remaining ones when I was a little too young to properly take in, but I do remember how tall and upright the seating was compared to more modern cars, now I imagine it would feel indistinguishable from a crossover.
What a phenomenal colour for that car!
The padded dash is a little rich; to get there the driver’s face would first have to be strained through the steering wheel(s).
And I always wondered about those in-bumper exhaust outlets; seems to me they would tend to greatly hasten corrosion of the chrome. I guess cars didn’t (and weren’t supposed to) last long enough for it to matter at that time.
I am assuming, Paul, that you’ve seen this movie, which I mention here primarily for the copious car content and not because it’s got (that other) Daniel Stern in it.
I well remember, being a little kid when the bumper exhaust outlets were introduced circa 55 by Cadillac, Lincoln, Thunderbird, Packard, and Imperial, that they quickly discolored the bumpers. Also, they made the bumper surface hot and if not careful people got burned in garages, gas stations, etc. I think by 57-58 they were all gone.
The bumper exhaust outlets showed up on the 1951 Cadillacs.
Actually ’57 and ’58 Cads had them, as did ’57 & 58 DeSoto (pic of one of my ’58s) and ’57 Olds. I loved them then and still do!
Love the color, it does look like ’56 Lincoln Wisteria, and boy would I love to own one of those in Wisteria with white leather!
In this era, Cadillac residuals (as a percentage of initial cost) were quite strong, so well-to-do buyers would often trade in every year. Fixing the rotted-out bumpers was a second or third owner problem.
I prefer the early 60’s Cadillacs myself but I think these were the last true Cadillacs that were like nothing else on the road at the time. When you saw one coming up the street everyone from your little brother to your grandmother knew what it was
and wanted to see who was driving it because they knew it was someone stepping out of the crowd and being a bit of a trendsetter.
The only modern car I can think of that might provoke the same thoughts today is a Tesla Model S.
The ‘54 was not quite there. The ‘56 was starting to get complicated. The ‘55 was sublime. The build quality of Cadillacs of this era were only rivaled by Rolls-Royce.
Don’t forget the Continental Mk 11.
I agree with chris goethe, but I’m thinking of mechanical changes rather than styling.
Many of the new-for-’56 features didn’t pan out. Cylinder heads, transmission, brakes, to hit the high points.
With an all-new ’57 on the way it’s a wonder that some of the costly ’56-only features were bothered with. For example, hanger brake pedal, new transmission…
Then again, for being the “same” car, ’55 saw some serious rework of ’54 metal..
For me, ’56 body with ’55 mechanicals would be the ticket.
The transmission was redesigned in part because GM’s biggest engines were running up against the torque limit of the older Dual-Range Hydra-Matic. A lot of the early problems of the new Controlled Coupling Hydra-Matic were due to still not being quite beefy enough, particularly in the clutch sprags, which had to be upgraded after launch.
The fact that the body shell was slated to be all new for ’57 was almost certainly a reason for making mechanical changes before that. Cadillac’s development budget wasn’t unlimited, so they had to space out the big revisions. (The transmission was developed by Engineering Staff and made by Detroit Transmission, so in that area, I think Cadillac was largely just a customer.)
It’d make great press, announcing that engine torque was headed for the stratosphere and thus Dual-Range had reached its design limits and needed to go. Howevuer, the explanation wouldn’t hold up well to a bit of scrutiny.
It’s a fact that Dual-Range proved extremely durable in severe service of medium/heavy trucks. As seen, among other vocations, with army 6×6 using the old transmission behind “real” truck engines of high torque capacity, not simply repurposed low-torque passenger car engines. Such installations were plainly seeing plenty more load and “twist” than even Cadillac’s or Oldsmobile’s most optimistically anticipated gains.
Then, let’s consider production realities too. The early “too weak” transmission was carried on for heavy work while the new “higher capacity” Dual-Coupling never saw anything beyond common passenger car duty.
It just makes more sense to speculate that the change to the mushy “flush and fill” dual coupling design was actually a rushed attempt to get away from the original transmission’s clanky firmness, and more toward torque converter smoothness, albeit without one.
Whatever pushed the hurry for an update, still, the rushed changeover for the ’56 chassis that was in its final edition is interesting. The transmission upgrade wasn’t easy or cheap. Even the engine block was changed and the retiring chassis required a one-year transmission. For the all new ’57 another heavy revision was needed. All for a trans that proved not ready for ’56 prime time and could have used an extra year of refinements. Meanwhile the old box remained in production anyway.
Jim, your argument is not based on facts. The GMC M135 6×6 trucks you refer to all had the six cylinder GMC engine with 302 cubic inches. Contrary to your assumption/assertion, these truck engines cannot magically make more torque than a comparable passenger car engine. The only real difference is heavier duty components to allow them to endure the stresses of constant hard use, but their torque output is no more than a similar sized passenger car 6 cylinder engine.
Specifically, the various versions of the 302 were rated at 262 to 268 lb.ft. of torque.
The reality is that V8 engines tuned for higher output generate more torque than a comparable sized mildly tuned six cylinder, and the size of these V8s was obviously increasing. Cadillac’s V8 had been 331 cubic inches, but its torque output by 1955 was 345 lb.ft., significantly higher than the 302 six.
And for 1956, Cadillac’s V8 was increased to 356 cubic inches, with a corresponding increase in torque, to 400 lb.ft. Drastically more torque than the GMC six.
A full throttle upshift would land the engine right near its max. torque peak, and it’s the torque peak that counts, not whether it’s continuous or not.
The extra grunt of the M135 6×6 trucks of the period was due in large part to the two-speed underdrive unit incorporated into the back of their Model 303M Hydra-Matic transmissions, which gave a low range of 3.82:1. The underdrive was manually operated and could be used in any gear, giving a total of eight speeds forward and two reverse. (In 1st-low, the net gear ratio at the output shaft was 15.67:1!) This was obviously not an arrangement relevant to the typical ’50s Cadillac buyer.
The desire to smooth out shift action and the need to increase torque capacity were closely related. The changes involved in increasing the single-coupling Hydra-Matic’s torque capacity would also have made shifts even firmer, which was the last thing most Hydra-Matic users wanted. For military users and truck buyers, that wasn’t a big concern, but for passenger cars, it wasn’t great, especially as more rivals entered the field.
I think the major reason the dual-coupling Hydra-Matic wasn’t adopted nearly as widely by outside users as the earlier transmission had been was not durability or torque capacity, but cost. The Controlled Coupling transmission was really, really, complicated and was not at all cheap to build compared to contemporaries like the late ’50s Borg-Warner automatics.
That’s evidenced by the fact that when Oldsmobile and Pontiac switched away from the dual-coupling transmission, it wasn’t to return to a beefed-up version of the Dual-Range single-coupling Hydra-Matic, but rather to adopt the simplified three-speed Roto Hydra-Matic, whose main virtue compared to the dual-coupling transmission was that it was cheaper to build. (You want to talk about slushy …)
The Dual-Range Hydra-Matic used on the 1961-64 full-size Oldsmobiles and 1961-64 lower-level, full-size Pontiacs was not very durable.
I was a member of the Oldsmobile Club of America in the 1990s. When members reminisced about their 1961-64 Oldsmobiles, their stories invariably included a complete transmission failure at about 80,000 miles.
Geeber, I think you mean the Roto HydraMatic. The Dual Range was (I believe) only seen in 1953-55 and was the precursor to the Controlled Coupling (Jetaway) that ran from 1956 through 1963-64 in some models.
The Roto was very short lived, seeing the light of day only from 1961-64 and in only the models you mention.
Quick primer, since this is a confusing issue (not helped by different divisions giving the same transmissions different names).
Before Turbo Hydra-Matic arrived in 1964–65, there were several distinct iterations of Hydra-Matic:
– The early four-speed single-coupling versions, used in various forms beginning in MY1940. This had a single fluid coupling (not a torque converter) and three planetary gearsets. The most widely used version was the Dual-Range Hydra-Matic, introduced in MY1952, which was a modest update of the previous design with separate D3 and D4 Drive ranges. It was used by Cadillac, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, some Chevrolet and GMC trucks, a bunch of non-GM customers, and Rolls-Royce/Bentley (which built their own under license).
– The second-generation dual-coupling version, introduced for MY1956. This still had dual driving ranges, three planetary gearsets, and four speeds, but replaced one of its clutches with a second small dump-and-fill fluid coupling and added a bunch of additional clutches and brakes. It was again used by Cadillac, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, and a few non-GM customers, though not as many as before. It got a bunch of names, including Controlled Coupling Hydra-Matic, Super Hydra-Matic, Jetaway Hydra-Matic, and Strato-Flight Hydra-Matic, depending on who was using it.
– The third-generation single-coupling version, introduced in 1961. This was a simplified version of the dual-coupling transmission, now with only two planetary gearsets, three speeds, and a single dump-and-fill fluid coupling/torque converter. This is commonly called Roto Hydra-Matic, but it also had a confusing assortment of other names. It was used on full-size 1961–64 Oldsmobiles, most 1961–64 full-size Pontiacs except the Star Chief, and in a smaller version by the 1961–63 Oldsmobile F-85/Cutlass and some Holden, Opel, and Vauxhall models. Functionally and in performance, it was kind of a worst-of-all-worlds compilation of the earlier versions and its replacement by Turbo Hydra-Matic did not come nearly soon enough.
Nice summary, AUWM.
Just the minor clarification that the “old” box lived on in trucks and non-GM applications for years after the “new” trans replaced it in Cad, Olds, Pon, in ’56.
I’m not sure when exactly the final versions of the old box were minted.
Practically seems like they were once used in EVERYTHING that needed automatic shifting.They may still be in production someplace like India? LoL
GMC truck, early ’60s, seems to have been the sunset for the early trans at GM
This is the Cadillac that has never, should never and will most definitely never ZIG.
I agree with Paul, the ’55 is the best of the three year series. The ’56’s had the jet pod quarter panels. These and the 1965 models are what come to mind when I hear the name Cadillac. I love the lilac color.
For some reason, my favorite is the 1956. Maybe it’s because when I was a kid I remember seeing a number of the new-for-1956 Sedan de Ville four-door hardtops. Long, elegant, and with that special something only hardtops had.
As a kid, I was fascinated by the Cadillac emblem encased in plastic right at the center of the steering wheel.
Colorful. A combination of simple yet elaborate. So classy compared to the stylized “R” of our family car. With apologies to Johnny Cash, I always wanted me one.
I don’t recall the rear wheel openings looking so “right” if a fender skirt was missing, I wonder if the feature car has some mods there?
My Grandfather would have agreed with you regarding fins. He was a Cadillac man. traded every two years. Had a 55, first of his cars I have memories to. he traded it on a 57. but come 59, He had had enough with fins and kept the 57 until 61. Though fins were being reduced substantially from the stratospheric heights of 59, Granddad decided a new 61 Buick Deuce and a Quarter 6 window hardtop gave him all the Cadillac goodness at a lower price (barely) and he left Cadillac to stay with Buick, trading again, every 2 years, until his passing.
It’s not a Cadillac but the lilac color reminds me of a 1958 Buick I saw in the tone of “Lilac Mist”. I wonder how that drop top featured in the piece would look in that hue?
I’m also a fan of this era of Cadillac. There’s a balance of futuristic optimism and traditional presence that just hits the mark for an aspirational luxury car.
It also reminds me how single headlight ‘pontoon’ styling has always seemed, to me, the best automotive look of the last century.
What a beautiful car! Normally I’m not a lilac kinda guy, but there’s something about this that it totally nails.
Is it just me, or is the side profile almost indicative that it would have otherwise had a rear engine? The drastically short overhang, fairly short hood and an extremely long deck seems to be fairly unique.
the pedal through the floorboard does not seem right for a 55 gm car
does it ?
Interesting observation/question. I looked at some interior pics via Google and found that it appears the 55 Cadillac and Buick did not have a suspended brake pedal but the 55 Oldsmobile did have a suspended brake pedal (as I recall from my aunt’s car back in the day).
I had not noticed that, but looking at some shots online it appears that 1956 was the year Cadillac switchedmto the modern wide suspended pedal. It must have been seen as a big deal to be introduced in the last year of that body.
Mid to late fifties Caddys kind of remind me of the Kardashians. The words “wow” and “impressive” immediately come to mind, but never ever “beautiful” or “lovely.” I’d save those adjectives for the masterpieces of the early sixties
What caught my eye in the interior photo was the steep angle of the steering column . . .
For the record, that’s Marilyn in front of the black convertible. Here’s another photo; I assume the car was hers.
https://www.scribd.com/article/372078370/Old-Hollywood-S-Favorite-Car