(first posted 2/2/2012)
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.
Cross-over? Some of the earlier Plymouth wagons were more SUV-ish, with three rows of seats sitting tall on an elevated floor and a lot more room to climb in and out of them. Or maybe that was just because I was seven or eight when Mrs. Prevo, wife of the local Chrysler-Plymouth dealer and our next-door neighbor, would load a bunch of us into her car for trips to the fairgrounds or a movie. I remember climbing up over the rear door sill to the entry floor, then up another step to where the seats loomed. That eight-seat car could hold Mrs. Prevo and ten kids easily.
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.
As I recall the Royal update has what were literally clip on fibreglass fins on top of the existing fins!
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!
I wonder if the prospect of Tri-5 Plymouths (like Chevys and Fords) would have had the potential to change domestic automotive styling history. Consider that if the Forward Look had been introduced in 1958, they would have been up against the then brand-new Chevy and, just maybe, the Forward Look cars wouldn’t have been such a smash hit. If that had happened, GM could have stuck with their original plan and completely by-passed their Batmobile fin cars, going straight to 1960 cars that looked like what came out in 1961.
Likewise, with Forward Look not being ‘all that’ for Chrysler, they, too, could have moved onto a much more traditionally styled 1960 car resembling what came out in 1961. Granted, the face of the ’61 Plymouth was pretty bizarre, but just maybe there wouldn’t have been the crash downsizing of the ’62 Mopars, going to what would become the ’65 Chrysler lineup that much sooner.
Not to mention that Lynn Townsend might have retained Exner throughout much of the sixties with much more original designs, rather than the Engel improved-GM cars.
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…
hi pete im looking for parts for my 55 belverdere can you give me infomation on were to sauce them many thanks kevin the kiwi
I have a1955 with flames on the nose! I’ve loved the long lines and the original engine. I had to have it totally re-wired ’cause the rats ate it up and at that time I made the only change that I want to make. I changed it from 6 volt to 9 volt and now it starts by the the turn of the key. She’s a hit in the 4th of July parade! The liitle kids all stop and stare. The seats have original covering and its in great shape! I want to keep the engine original so I can learn to disassemble and re-assemble. I love the oil bath air filter. I’m still trying to understand that concept. I hope to keep in touch because I’ll need to do some body work, etc. and you seem to be into this beast as much as I am. My car is at home in Michigan and I currently live in Hawaii but I will be trying to get some stuff done before I move back so I’ll be in touch for some help. I hope that you’ll be there. Aloha, Donald
Sweet looking wagon .
-Nate
You’re right–the wagon does really show off the lines better than the trunked models. Beautiful lines, and I bet it’s a hoot to drive with the 383.
I am almost POSITIVE that the turquoise Plymouth Overdrive Station Wagon pictured above was my dad’s car that he bought NEW! I wish to God knew WHERE this car was located so I could make them a VERY GENEROUS offer on it. It has Collector’s Plates on it in Washington state some place. My dad is now 92. If I drove up in that car, I’m sure he would start bawlin with delight.
It’s no longer around here. I talked to the owner recently, as he now has a ’71 Riviera, but sold the Plymouth.
1955 was a very good year for styling of the bottom-tier Big Three. I like the Plymouth best, but the Ford and Chevy aren’t far behind. The biggest issues with the Plymouth are the 6-volt electrical system (which, evidently, isn’t too difficult to switch over to 12-volt) and the convoluted side moldings of the upper tier models. It’s a shame it was the last year before Chrysler went all fin-crazy.
And here’s a little tidbit about that ’55-’56 symmetrical dash. In the book version of Christine, there is a dream sequence where the car’s dash morphs into a human face with the two big dials turning into eyes. The only problem is the 1958 Plymouth Fury had normal instrument locations in front of the driver as the symmetrical dash had been dropped the year before.
If this Plymouth seems to lack some of the lightness and grace of the 55-56 Chrysler and DeSoto (and it does) it would be expected. Though Exner was in charge and directly oversaw the senior lines, Plymouth and Dodge styling was directly run by Henry King.
King’s design talents first appeared in the 1940 Mopar line and continued until Exner was promoted over him in the 50s. To me, King’s work was always a little bit “off”. The 40-48 cars weren’t bad (though they were far from stylish) and the 49-54 designs, well, you have covered that. But I guess in a company where engineers ruled with an iron fist, King was the kind of stylist that could be successful there.
Would it be accurate to say that Henry King was K.T. Keller’s man, then when Keller was replaced by ‘Tex’ Colbert, Exner became the de facto head of all Chrysler styling?
If so, the Studebaker connection of Exner being on Loewy’s team brings up a very interesting scenario. What if Studebaker had went with Exner instead of Loewy, and it had been Loewy (and not Exner) who came to Chrysler? Is it conceivable Loewy could have gotten the beautiful (but mechanically flawed) 1953 Starliner built as a Chrysler product? Of course, Chrysler had a penchant for screwing things up nearly as badly as Studebaker (Exner’s 1957 Forward Look cars is a great example) so a 1953 Chrysler Starliner probably wouldn’t have fared any better than a Studebaker.
Still, it could have been a game-changer for Chrysler if it had been Loewy, and not Exner, who came onboard. Imagine a hemi-powered, unibody Starliner, maybe even as a Desoto.
But, then, the potential would have been there for Exner’s Forward Look cars to come out as Studebakers.
It is my understanding that King was there when Ray Dietrich was running Chrysler Styling in the late 30s. Walter Chrysler always had an appreciation of styling and even though Fred Zeder (who was king of engineering then) couldn’t stand Dietrich, Chrysler protected him. But when Walter P had a stroke in the summer of 1938 and became incapable of working, Zeder wasted no time in firing Dietrich. King was the guy who replaced him. Dietrich’s work of the 30s was a bit uneven, but at its best had a lightness and grace about it that King’s work never matched. Just compare the 1939 Chrysler to the 1940, or the 39-40 Plymouth to the 41.
Keller gets a bum rap as this crass bum with no education who was good with the wrenches, but that is actually far from true. Keller was a bright guy who graduated high school at 16 and went on to business college. He spent time in England and was a “white collar” guy until he took a pay cut to go into a program as a machinists apprentice. He was much better educated than Walter Chrysler. He was a fabulous production guy whose downfall was that he was probably a better No. 2 than he was as a No. 1. Engineering ran Chrysler then and Keller knew that, and was probably fine with it until sales started tanking in the early 50s. I think the best description would be that King was a competent, journeyman car designer who knew his place in the system and did what he could within that system. Nobody with real talent (and the ego that normally comes with it) could have survived there after Walter Chrysler became inactive. Lowey would probably have been sabotaged by engineering on day 2 and fired by day 31.
Nice synopsis of Keller at Chrysler. Likewise, probably right about Loewy not lasting very long if he’d went to Chrysler instead of Exner. I suspect that Exner, despite his eccentricities, would have been much more able to bide his time until the time was right for his styling to come to the fore over engineering at Chrysler. Sure enough, when sales started sliding and Colbert replaced Keller, Exner had his chance. It’s unlikely that a stylist of Loewy’s stature would have been nearly as content to wait.
Exner and the 1957 Forward Look were in the can and beginning production when Keller retired in 1956. He was the guy who hired Ex to head up Advanced Styling and the guy who promoted him past Henry King to be styling VP. The big mystery to me has always been how Keller the ace production guy allowed those awful 57s through. Maybe he was coasting towards retirement?
By the time Colbert took over, all of the decisions leading to the disasters of the 57 models had been made. He got stuck with the fallout. However, it’s hard to feel too sorry for him as his tenure had plenty of failures of his own.
I flat out love the look of all the ’55 MoPars. Is this “betterer”?
Now it looks more like a ’51 Chevy, except for the headlights.
This story is just as enjoyable to read the second time around. I never tire of seeing 1955 and 1956 Plymouths.
Regarding the windshield – Exner knew that the corporation needed something to stay in step with the wraparound windshield that GM had introduced on the 1953 Cadillac Eldorado and Oldsmobile Fiesta, and expanded to the all-new 1954 Buicks, Cadillacs and Oldsmobiles. Chrysler management, however, didn’t want to be seen as copying GM. This windshield design was the compromise.
A great read Paul on a car I only had very basic knowledge on! This one was originally published before I even knew of CC, so it’s nice to read for the first time. I especially enjoyed your detailed styling analysis and comparison to the Chevys and Fords.
I must’ve missed this when it was first run, or maybe I wasn’t on the list then, but my first childhood memories about cars at all were all about mid-50s Mopars.
At age four (4) in 1958, my dad took one of the cars “off the lot” at the dealership where he worked and used it for our family vacation. It was to be the last one with my oldest brother (18-19), middle brother (14) and my parents all together. We went from Detroit to see my Mother’s relatives in Nashville (specifically, Manchester) Tennessee. I still have quite a few memories from that trip, and I’m sure it’s been at least 30-40 years since I’ve seen any of the photographs (though most all of them are now in my possession).
The ’55 Cranbrook was an all black 4-door, black and white interior, and I remember lots of chrome, both inside and out.
For me, the attraction really began with the ’56 and onward models, but I do have that fondness__due to association__with the ’55.
Thanks again, if somewhat belatedly, for the interesting read and stirring up those memories!
Before closing, I’ll recap on the last time I had any association with a ’55 Plymouth (that one I think was a Plaza, definitely a 2-door though); living in an apartment building near the Civic Center in San Francisco, there was another tenant that owned the car and admitted he’d “take anything” for it, since he didn’t drive it anymore, except just enough to keep the battery charged. I kind of wanted it, but I already had two (2) MGBs that required most of my spare time to keep running, so I suggested to our younger than I (22-23 at the time myself) apt. manager to offer him $50.00 for it. The offer was readily accepted, and with very minor work (I recommended the brake hydraulics being done over) it was on the road. My then girlfriend and I moved out of there shortly after, and he too took another job, so we lost touch, but I did see Tim driving the car once more, circa 1978, heading up the hill on Dolores Street towards Mission St. Though he was smiling as he waved when we went by in the Healey (which I still have today) I’m sure the anxiety of reaching the top of the hill was on his mind…
The styling of this wagon looks better to me than it did forty years ago. I’m learning to appreciate these cars. That blue Ghia coupe would make a great 2017 Chrysler 300 coupe.
I hate those gas struts, thankful that with my current sedan, it uses good old lateral torsion bars to hold up the decklid. Some cars even have gas struts for the hood (bonnet)!
With my Accord hatch, I found that aftermarket struts didn’t fit as well as the OEMs, so I gave up & reverted to the latter.
Thanks to CC, I have really come to appreciate these older Chrysler products much more than I did before. Wrap around windshields – yuck. This is much better looking and practical. Guilty confession – I don’t like late 50’s / early 60’s cars that much due to their over the top styling.
Park a new Ford Escape, Edge, Explorer, etc next to a Model A 2.0 and successors for the following 25 years. We are just getting back to what makes the most sense for a large portion of the population.
If I was buying a new family truckster in 1955, it would be one of these before a Ford or Chevrolet.
From the ad with the red car: “A car which seems to anticipate your wishes and execute them almost without direction.”
Industry is only now getting to the point where that is no longer empty, risible marketing blather:
http://www.technologyreview.com/s/602210/prepare-to-be-underwhelmed-by-2021s-autonomous-cars/
I love 55-56 Mopars, they really represented a peak in styling, combining (as noted above) a touch of the juke box age with grown-up solidity.
However, I don’t think I’ve ever seen one in the flesh! – stuck here in Brexit Isle, where you can always find a 50s Cadillac at a show, but an Imperial or a Desoto – dream on.
The 55s definitely influenced the Rover P5 (look at the C-pillars, as well as the overall stance an presence). And the P5 definitely had a proper grille!
Sometime in the mid ’70’s I first saw a ’55 Plymouth. It was a 2-door station wagon, which I had NO idea at the time had been made by anyone other than GM!
The car was sitting, not running, in someone’s yard. I remember thinking at the time what a cool-looking street machine it would make, and what I would do to the front end to make it look better,,,
I always appreciated the various Chrysler designs for NOT adopting the extreme doglegs marketed by Ford and GM. However, I don’t find the ’53 – ’54 styling any more stodgy than what Chevy was selling in those same years. If anything, those Dodge/Plymouth models actually look more European to me. Though, I think I would choose a ’56 for it’s better gauge layout and the 12 volt electrics.
Happy Motoring, Mark
One big difference in the ’55 Chevy and Ford vs. the Plymouth is that both had a much flatter cowl – on the Plymouth there’s quite an arc, and as a result the beltline is lower but the crown of the hood and trunk are more visible. It really is a transition car – the fender line speaks to the future, while the overall approach (lower fenderline, higher hoodline) looks backwards.
Of course, Exner would return to this theme with the ’62 B Bodies but that proved to be one of his dead ends.
And the brochure illustration of the ’55 Belevdere sedan is the car my parents received for their wedding 61 years ago!
How have we managed to have a discussion of the dash mounted shifter without mentioning the next car to feature that — the Corvair! Also with no park function in the trans. Gotta yank that big brake lever.
This is Americana incarnate. Just downright gorgeous.
Pour ma DE SOTO EXPORT ( PLYMOUTH ) 1955 est-ce qu’une personne aurait un plan de montage ou une photo concernant le câble de frein parking du coté du tambour sur l’arbre de transmission.
J’habite en France dans le Sud.
Merci pour vos réponses
Cordialement
Personally DE SOTO EXPORT (PLYMOUTH) 1955 is that a person would have a timeline or a photo on the parking brake cable side of the drum on the drive shaft.
I live in France in the South.
Thank you for your answers
cordially
Sorry, 6 years late responding, don’t have a picture of it, but yes, these Plymouths had their parking brake on the drive shaft rather than the rear wheel cylinders…don’t know when the change was made to move to rear brakes, but I’d guess early 60’s.
These 2 cars are interesting to me, in that they are the two first makes that my Dad owned…he had a ’56 Plymouth Plaza, complete stripper (other than a heater, don’t think it had a radio), with a flathead 6, 3 speed on the tree…he bought it when he graduated college, he hadn’t yet met my Mother, though they got married the next year and my sister and I came the following year. My Mother has never really been comfortable driving a manual (she learned on a semi-automatic Chrysler) and having twins prompted their purchase of a 1961 Rambler Classic wagon they bought in Compton Ca…my sister and I were born in Massachusetts, but my Dad got a job in El Monte, Ca, and while my sister, my Mother, and I flew out on a propeller plane my Dad drove the Plymouth across country to join us…he was carrying chemicals that were needed in his new job, packed in dry ice, in an ice chest, which apparently were very dangerous…he ran out of dry ice and ended up stopping at a military base (he had been in the army previously so was pretty comfortable about stopping) where when they found out what he was carrying fortunately got him some dry ice enough to last the rest of his trip. Don’t know what the chemicals were or why he couldn’t get them once he arrived in California. He was a chemist, and working on his 2nd job on semiconductors, making solar cells for Hoffman Electronics…some of them went up on Explorer 6 satellite in 1959.
Anyhow, we had the Plymouth a few years in California, but I’m sure my Mother lobbied for both an automatic and a wagon for all our baby paraphernalia. He’d bought the Plymouth in Kingston, Pa (both him and my Mom were from that area, in fact my Mom was born in Kingston).
We ended up driving back east when we were a few years older, by then in the ’61 Rambler, when my Dad got another job this time in Pittsburgh PA area (my Dad changed jobs frequently in his younger years, and due to his job had to live wherever the plant to build the semiconductors (not chips yet, individual transistors) was located. He bought another (’63) Rambler Wagon in Pittsburgh, not sure why he bought it so soon after the ’61, but maybe the trip back east from California took a toll…he’s gone now so I can’t ask him, and my Mother wouldn’t remember.
The 1955 Plymouth deck is longer than the 1949-54 cars, if anyone agrees?
Great post. Paul so often points out things that my eyes have seen but my brain hasn’t managed to make conscious.
I’ve always liked the basic form and proportions of these cars, but that chrome log in the grille made sure that (even to a kid at the time) you didn’t forget this was a Chrysler product. The front half of the car and the greenhouse in particular were so well done. It really needed a more elegant grille.
The same doubts crept in with the flat, painted metal dashboard with its symmetrical round dials. In spite of the graceful lines of the body, aspects of the car still looked suspiciously utilitarian and a bit dowdy. But there’s no question in hindsight that this wagon, as well as the ’51 Cranbrook – another one of my favourite posts, have definitely stood the test of time. They were both under-appreciated in their day.
Great writeup Paul. I reminisce about my Dad’s ’55 Dodge (Plodge) Crusader in reading this piece. At one time or another, it was (partially) the same colour light blue as this. Thanks for the repost.