Here they are together–two 1958 GM “Golden Milestone” cars that competed in the luxury class. You’ll notice that both cars share the body middle section (doors, windows, roof); however the engines, transmissions, suspensions, interiors, and front and rear styling are different. This top-of-the-line Buick actually cost more than the Cadillac when new, and is 10 inches longer!
Shown at Nostalgia Motors, Boonton NJ
These cars illustrate just how important brand image and differentiation was in the 1950s. As Ralph Parker [Jean Shepherd] put it in A Christmas Story, “Some men are Baptists, others Catholics–my father was an Oldsmobile man.” Many people who bought Buicks would never purchase a Cadillac, and vice-versa. This loyalty is reflected in the fact that 75% of Cadillac owners intended to buy another Cadillac once they traded their present car in.
And despite sharing inner body structure, these two cars would have very different personalities: Buick with its 364 c.i. “Nailhead” V-8; Cadillac with its famous Kettering-designed V-8 engine, known for its smoothness, silence, and solid reliability. Buick introduces its velvet “Switch the pitch a million ways” Flight-Pitch Dynaflow transmission, while Cadillac continues with an improved Hydra-Matic which lacks the “jerkiness” of the past–the shifts are now practically imperceptible at light to moderate throttle. Suspension and driveline are different too. Buicks have long had “Torque-Tube” drive with an enclosed driveshaft and coil springs all around. Cadillac has replaced its rear leaf springs with coils for ’58 as well, but retains a traditional driveshaft arrangement.
However, the styling and size differences are what most people will notice the most. Each car is instantly recognizable for what it is. There’s no mistaking Buick’s “Dynastar” grille, with 160 chrome squares, beveled to reflect a maximum of sparkle. Cadillac, not to be outdone, introduces a wide grille with gleaming projectiles where the grille bars intersect. Harley Earl loved these when he first saw the design proposal, and like Caddy’s famous fins, the grille projectiles would become a Cadillac styling hallmark for the next few model years.
Speaking of Cadillac fins, the ’58s are the most prominent yet, but they are just a warm-up for the lethal weapons soon to come. Buick retains straight fenders, topped with bright strips (to suggest fins) wrapping downward to meet the “Twin-Tower” taillights, which are ribbed with chrome in a design which suggests the 1936 Cord grille. Both Buick and Cadillac rear bumpers feature jet exhaust-type motifs, but thankfully the Cadillac exhaust has been re-routed under the bumper pod rather than through it, which eliminates staining and corrosion–a slight concession to practicality. All in all, it would be hard to find better examples of the “Golden Age of Gorp” than these two leviathans.
Top: Buick Bottom: Cadillac
Stepping into the driver’s seat, one is faced with a chromed instrument panel reminiscent of something out of 1930s-50s outer space science fiction movies like Buck Rogers. Even the “Autronic Eye” automatic headlight dimmer looks like the alien weaponry from War of the Worlds! I think the Buick dash outdoes the Caddy in terms of overwrought “dream-car” sophistication with its bullet-like pods and ribbon speedometer. The Limited’s tufted upholstery seems more luxurious than the Cadillac 62’s two-toned cloth and “Elascofab” vinyl. In checking out the Limited, you can see that Buick designers went “all-out” to create a super-luxury car to compete with Cadillac, Lincoln, and Imperial.
Top: Buick Bottom: Cadillac
So what are these cars like to drive? Well, as someone who has driven the ’58 Cadillac shown above, it is easy to see why Cadillac dominated the luxury car field. This car drives (I would say wafts) effortlessly down the highway at moderate speeds. You feel like you’re driving something luxurious and expensive. All the fittings around you are well-made and finely crafted. The engine combines silkiness with good low-end torque that you feel in the first inch of accelerator pressure. Handling is very good for a car this size, and makes the car feel smaller. Consumer Reports, which tested all 1958 cars, rated Cadillac a BEST BUY, citing its excellent quality and reliability combined with highest resale value. “The Cadillac offers truly silent and luxurious motoring,” they stated.
Top: Buick Bottom: Cadillac
However, CR was not so keen on the Limited. Their testers complained about body shake on the Buick, which is somehow related to Buick’s torque-tube drive. They disliked Buick’s “over-soft” ride and “out-of-touch with the road handling.” It was a car “silky smooth on the boulevards but ill-mannered off them. A poor buy by almost any standard.” It’s surprising that two cars built on the same body shell could produce such differing reactions!
Unfortunately, the public agreed with CR and few people seemed interested in paying Cadillac money for a Buick, no matter how long, roomy, and luxurious it was. Only 7,436 Limiteds were sold, vs. 60,848 Cadillac Series 62s. This again shows the power of brand association. I personally kind of like this concept of a super-luxury Buick, with its distinctive brightwork ornamentation and lush interior; and I like the idea of Dynaflow’s no-shift smoothness. However, I would have to drive one personally to see if the shortcomings pointed out by the cynics at CR (whose favorite car was the Rambler, the very antithesis of these monsters) were actually valid. I’m hoping readers out there in CC Land with experience driving late ’50s Buicks could shed some light on this.
This Buck Rogers spaceship miniature has many design elements seen in late ’50s cars
These cars were truly the last of their kind. Next year, all GM cars would share the same body shell (no more “A” body for Chevrolet and Pontiac; “B” for Olds and the “smaller” Buicks; “C” for big Buicks and Cadillac). In future years they will also share engines, transmissions, chassis and frame design, as well as many other things. The distinctions between GM’s “Five Great Motorcar Divisions” were starting to erode away. Buyers eventually caught on to the charade, and today only three of the five GM car divisions remain.
So I’ll end with this question: If you wanted to own either of these, which would you pick?
So easy on the eyes on this lovely Saturday morning! Thanks for this.
The CR descriptions of the different feel of the Buick and the Cadillac is interesting. The basic body shells were the same, but I don’t think the difference has anything to do with the torque tube in the Buick. Instead, the Cadillac used the X frame while Buick used a perimeter frame with an X brace in the middle. One would think that the X frame would make for a less rigid structure, but I owned a 63 X frame Cadillac and found it to be quite rigid indeed. Perhaps the gauge of the steel used in the frames was a factor?
The Buick v. Cad sales thing for 1958 is not a mystery in my eyes. 1958 was a terrible recession year and those who tended to be more careful with their money (the Buick buyers) just held off and didn’t buy anything. Cadillac buyers were either wealthy enough that the recession wasn’t a factor or vain enough that they needed to prove to their neighbors that the recession wasn’t a factor.
I have always liked the 58 Cadillac much better than I liked either the 57 or the 59. If I had to choose between the two I would take the Cadillac. My father always said that you should never buy the most expensive house in an average neighborhood but the cheapest house in a more expensive neighborhood. A less expensive Cadillac would be a better bet than the super-high-end Buick for this reason. The Buick didn’t offer enough reason for me (performance or style) to buck this advice.
On 6/25/16, someone asked whether CC would do something on the ’58 Limited.
You (JPC) replied: “… if I find a 58 Limited, you can bet I will do something with it here.”
Well, here it is–I found one for you! Thanks for publishing it.
GM had poor styling in 1958, it’s hard to say whether the Buick or the Olds were the nadir.
I think the Chevy Impala was their best effort and was very attractive – much more so than the 1959.
I have to agree with you regarding the Impala, and being of more modest means, especially in a recession year, for me it would’ve been a loaded Impala indeed. And styling wise, the other four for ‘58 were kinda out there, although I do see the beauty in these examples here.
The Impala was just a really pretty car in the right color combination.
If I must pick between these two however, I’ll take the Caddy (or wait until 1960 – my birth year)… That was a gorgeous Series 62.
A huge vote here for the Impala, still remember dad’s silver blue coupe very well. Cadillac had the second best styling that year, after which it was a massive drop to the other three.
And if I HAD to take a Buick that year, the Limited would be my absolute last choice. Overdone, overchromed, I thought they were ugly as an eight year old back in the day. Give me the Roadmaster with its much cleaner trim.
In the early 1960s, my high school cohort had access to a number of various family cars, mostly big and powerful Mopars and GM. But alas, no Cadillacs.
I do recall that the the big Chryslers (’60 Polara, ’57 Fireflite and ‘my family’s ’57 Windsor) were sharper off the line and stiffer riding, probably because of the snap-shifting 3 speed Torque-Flite transmissions and torsion bar setups respectively. They cornered rather well for the time.
The GMs (’58 Star Chief, ’61 Ventura, ’59 Super 88, my own ’57 88, and one ’58 Limited) were softer riding and less comfortable cornering at any speed, but were usually able to reel the Chryslers back in once they built up some speed, probably due to an advantage of more cubic inches, and – in most cases – a four speed automatic transmission that had more gear options (though the GM shifts were noticeably slower).
The ’58 Limited was owned by a Presbyterian minister (well, it was his wife’s car) and even with our teenage limited ability to exhibit any sense of good taste, we saw the Limited as a bit – dare I say – over baked. We never found out exactly how fast it was in the tests of the day, but it made a hell of a racket when floored on a straightaway with about 7 of us jammed into it.
When the ’58 Limited was about 6 or 7 years old, my friend drove it up to College in upstate NY. Somewhere along the way it stopped running and was abandoned in a small town. I do not recall what its final disposition was, but it would have made a hell of a chicken coop.
The Buick.
Chrome is my favorite color.
LOL
Ha! Actually in some ways the Limited it more tasteful chromewise than the other Buicks, which have a huge three dimensional chrome thing and more ribbed chrome stuff in the rear fender shape where the Limited has that series of chrome slashes on a painted surface. The regular tail lights are more baroque and heavy looking, if not so covered in more chrome hashes like the Limited.
As a kid I marveled at the rounded heaviness and chrome bedecked GM cars of 1958 and figured it was all a desperate measure to sell these cars vs the futuristic Ford products and Forward Look Chryslers. And in fact they only lasted that year, with the 1958 Chevys and Pontiacs a one-year body and the bigger cars very heavily restyled versions of the new 1957’s.
The larger cars got different frames for 1959 that allowed foot wells, and the smaller ones continued their new 1958 frames under new bodies. I doubt that many people suspected that their underpinnings were from the very different 1958’s.
Chrysler propaganda videos from 1957 show Cadillacs bucking and bouncing over something like a rail road track rise, with the Chryslers flying smoothly through and recovering quickly. A Buick would probably be more out of control.
No doubt modern shocks with maybe coil overs on the rears which reduce understeer would help the GM’s a lot. My 1962 (40 – 50 years old at the time) Lincoln wasn’t that bad, but it was really low and wide and relatively stiffly sprung for the time, compensating for weighing over 5,000 pounds. It also had coil over shocks on the rear to make up for the typically for these sagging over the decades leaf springs.
> The larger cars got different frames for 1959 that allowed foot wells, and the smaller ones continued their new 1958 frames under new bodies. I doubt that many people suspected that their underpinnings were from the very different 1958’s.
That’s news to me…. I thought they all retained their 1958 frames, and did until a single corporate-wide frame was used in 1965. As much as the ’59s look like they may have new frames, I have an even tougher time imagining the clean-and-taut 1962-64 full size GMs still using the 1958 frames.
> Actually in some ways the Limited it more tasteful chromewise than the other Buicks, which have a huge three dimensional chrome thing and more ribbed chrome stuff in the rear fender shape where the Limited has that series of chrome slashes on a painted surface
“a huge three-dimenional chrome thing and more ribbed chrome stuff” seems like an accurate description of any 1958 American car to me 🙂
Cadillac, much more elegant. That Buick is a hot mess. ’57-’58 Cadillac is one of my favorites. It replaced the “bathtub” look of the previous generation and pre-dated the bloated ’59. Looking at a ’58 Olds brochure, it appears that there was not a corresponding C body 98 that year?
As I recall Olds got kicked off the “real” C body for 1950, sharing the “C minus” or “Short C” with cheaper Buicks. Then they got a stretched OB shell for 1952 and a stretched B shell for 1954-56. The 57-58 seemed to follow that same pattern. Olds didn’t get a proper C again until 1961.
Buick really was king back then – it was fine for Buick to stretch up into Cadillac territory, but Oldsmobile had better not stretch up into Buick’s. 🙂
You mean Oldsmobile was demoted to a B-Body for 1950. While technically the B-body was a short C-body, no one ever called it a C-minus. Former GM stylist Richard Stout did reference this short body as the B-body. It was this 1950-51 B/C interchange program that Stout brought to Ford with him.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-general-motors-1950-body-interchange-program/
After the ’50-’53 C-Body 60 Special and Coupe de Ville/Convertible, the ’52 Olds 98 was the first mass-market tryout of the extended deck concept on the OB body, it worked beautify. Pontiac was next with the A-Body ’54 Star Chief. Only enough, Buick waited until the ’58 Limited for its first go. But, then again, they got a lot of mileage out of the concept with the Electra 225 for years after.
Great point about the extended deck. I think the main reason for the extended deck on the Cadillac coupes was to give the larger Series 62 some distinction over the smaller series 61 coupes. The 60 Special adopted it to give it more substantial size. However, Oldsmobile used it quite effectively to give the 98 some substantial size, despite it being based on the “mid-sized” OB body shell.
“Oldsmobile was demoted to a B-Body for 1950.”
I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this. Mr. Stout may have seen an actual B body in the dysfunction that was GM’s body program of 1948-52 but I still don’t. And I don’t think Fisher Body did at the time either, judging from the way they dropped the B and C designations on their body manuals in that period.
I acknowledge “C minus” as my own term to describe what that body really was – a C body that came in two basic lengths. That 1950-51 GM big body was no different than the Studebaker system where a single body served multiple lines by using different lengths.
You are correct, you and I will probably always disagree on this point. I just wanted to point out that there is no such thing as a “C-minus.” I know you haven’t found any Fisher body literature to support Stout’s theory, however, I think dismissing his knowledge on the subject is a bit extreme – especially since he provided a first hand account. He’s largely been considered an expert in the field by automotive historians on this subject matter. His interpretation of this body interchange program was published by highly respected publications, such as Special Interest Autos. It has also been accepted by other notable historians, such as Thomas Bonsall.
By your logic, if the 1950 B-body is really just a C-body, then the C-special and D-body are all really C-bodies too. They are all just length variations. I don’t understand why it’s such a problem that the B/C bodies are just length variations of each other. They evolved into that anyway by the end of the decade.
Further, dismissing Stout on the 1950 B/C-body program, also means that his paper doll presentation to Ford was erroneous. There are photos of his presentation that clearly show he refers to the B and C bodies. My only logical conclusion as to why Fisher had no reference to the B/C body may be because Stout worked for styling, who clearly designated a B/C body but may have classified things differently than Fisher body at that time.
The paper doll show presentation to Ford:
JPC and VinceC and everyone else: I know nothing of this, but wanted to share mystery footage, said to be 1945. Engineers (GM?) seemingly checking out prototype/production jigs for welding up bodies; at one point you see one labeled “B Sedan,” which may mean something. Interesting to also see engineer with surveyors’ transit (?), sighting for level or something? https://filmlibrary.shermangrinberg.com/?s=file=119814
The pre-war GM B-Body had developed to be defined by the fastback feature as differentiated from the notchback Torpedo C-Body. A major share of Oldsmobiles sold were B-Body, only the 98 was allowed the C-Body, the lowest percentage overall. There were A-Body base-series Oldsmobiles that provided significant volumes.
When the 1950 program was being developed, I’d posit since the 76 and 88 were slated for the A-Body, management didn’t want to base the 98 on the C-Body. Perhaps its was viewed as too much of a step and the unit cost were beyond their budget.
Over at Buick, the pre-war B-Bodied Special was in its last season. Flint had wrung all the sales they could out of the C-Body Supers and Roadmaster. It was time again with a buyer’s market to aggressively pursue the low-medium volume, something more than an A-Body was going to be necessary, so share with the Olds 98. Cadillac 61 was pretty much superfluous by then, something they’d realize by 1951. When the OB arrived, things were back to the pre-war A-B-C body normal.
Great Pic George, much appreciate you sharing. If you want to know more what JPC and I were discussing, see my article link above. It’s a deep dive into the history of GM’s body history at that time.
To summarize though, in 1948 a new C-Body was introduced, followed by an A-Body in 1949. There was no new B-body introduced during this time – the pre-war B-Body continued to 1949 for Buick. For 1950, the C-body was heavily revamped and the B-body was reintroduced. The big difference was that instead of creating an entirely new B-body shell for 1950, they just shortened the C-body, added a unique roof and designated it the B-body. This was the basis for the Buick Special, Super and Olds 98.
However, by 1951, a new OB body was released, which was more modern. This body shell was sized between the A and C body (and the 1950 B-body), so in essence it became the new B-body in all but name. The OB shell was supposed to be the new A-body shell, but Chevrolet and Pontiac, but instead it became the new Buick Special and was joined by the Super 88. For 1952 the Olds 98 joined using the OB body with a special elongated version (there were 1952 Olds 98 proposals with the old B-body).
Where JPC and I disagree is on the 1950/51 cars with the shortened C-body. I contend that it was GM’s intention to use one basic shell for both the B-body and C-body, as a cost saving measure. JPC, on the other hand, believes that all of the cars were C-bodies and the the change in length doesn’t merit a new body designation. Hence his name C-minus. One reasons is because the Fisher manuals don’t specify A or B-bodys for these years. I however believe that this is likely because the styling department designated the B/C/C-special/D-bodies, while Fisher body likely no longer needed these separate designations because they were all variations of the same body shell. Different needs for different departments. While GM did eventually go back to three separate body shells, by 1959, that was out the window and the 1950 model was adopted again, this time with the elimination of the A-body.
Thanks, VinceC, just happy to get this the film (with the frame capture) in front of you and the others that know this territory 1000x better than me. It was fun to go back to those earlier GM-Body essays and refresh my memory about all this….
Would you (or anyone else knowledgable and still following the thread) care to watch the film of the jig work and the transit/tripod thing, and describe what we’re seeing? (And is it definitely GM?) I’m not a GM guy, but midcentury design and (pre-) production has always fascinated me.
After the ’50-’53 C-Body 60 Special and Coupe de Ville/Convertible, the ’52 Olds 98 was the first mass-market tryout of the extended deck concept on the OB body, it worked beautify. Pontiac was next with the A-Body ’54 Star Chief. Only enough, Buick waited until the ’58 Limited for its first go. But, then again, they got a lot of mileage out of the concept with the Electra 225 for years after.
‘Elegant’ is the right word to choose the Caddy over the Buick. In terms of 1958 styling, the Limited isn’t all that bad but it’s still overwrought. The Cadillac shows some restraint, maybe even slightly European. The Buick is American Bulgemobile, through and through.
Combined with the better drivetrain and more tasteful interior (and that narrow price differential), it’s no wonder the Cadillac handily trounced the Buick in sales.
Even though I lean toward the Buick, I think I would take the Caddy.
Cadillac definitely! The Buick is overwrought and the Cadillac is, well, a Cadillac!
Cadillac. Buick was still the also-ran and had to try to make it up by slathering on more chrome and ornamentation…and they overdid it.
Styling notwithstanding, the Cadillac buyer knew that at trade-in, more of his initial investment would be returned. The Spring 1960 NADA for these two four door hardtops plus comparisons were as follows:
Make-Model———Advertised-Factory-Delivered—Average Retail
Cadilac Series 62————— $4891,———————- $3300
Cadillac Series 60 Special—-$6232,———————–$3750
Buick Limited Series 700——$5112,———————–$2370
Buick Roadmaster Series 75-$4667,———————–$2280
The Roadmaster series had been split into 70 and 75 the prior year, though Buick hadn’t fielded a true Cadillac-competitive model since the 1942 Limited. The motivation seems to have been to celebrate GM’s 50th Anniversary and honor Buick for its original place in the founding. Given there had been no immediate predecessor and no follow-up, the Limited is an anomaly.
Oh, here we go again with yet another screwy GM automatic shift quadrant. Fine, I’ll bite. P R N D G. Whatthehell is “G” for?
G = “Grade”. It’s a Grade Retarder–for downhill braking only. You do not accelerate in G. (Unlike a conventional “Low”.)
Screwy? This is the kind of stuff that makes old cars interesting!
As Poindexter notes: “… Screwy? This is the kind of stuff that makes old cars interesting!…”
Indeed. The 3 turbine Flight Pitch Dynaflow that was new and standard on the ’58 Limited was trouble prone, probably because drivers who were used to the older Dynaflow transmissions thought the “G” was the same gear as “L” and they used it as such, i.e., for quicker take offs.
But it wasn’t – and they should not have. (*)
(*) http://1fine59.com/?p=30
I agree it’s interesting. It’s also screwy.
Chevy’s of this era equipped with Turboglide also had a “G” for grade retard instead of an “L” on the shift quadrant.
One problem the heavy chromed taillight ribbed trim caused was it made the taillights invisible from any higher position drivers viewpoint.
I like the 58 Buick but the limited is just trying too hard to out-cadillac the Cadillac. The designer seemed to be thinking that the more chrome it had, the more prestigious it would be…well yes, but up to a point. Those vertical slashes on the rear flanks are just plain silly, seriously exacerbating the almost clumsy, heavy looking rear overhang.
Perhaps someone can enlighten me? If Buick was just below Caddy on the “ladder,” why was it saddled with what I would consider an inferior transmission? My dad’s friend who drove a Buick called it the Dynaflaw.
For the record, I would take that Caddy in a heartbeat. I also think the ’57 Buick looked much better than the ’58.
With the autonomy that GM Divisions enjoyed back then, Buick had pioneered its own automatic transmission in the Dynaflow of the late 40s. What the Hydra Matic accomplished through planetary gears the Dynaflow did through a torque converter. It was smoother but less efficient. Buick was proud of it and used versions of it up into the early 60s.
It was only when the peanut butter of the torque converter and the chocolate of the planetary gear unit were combined that we got the modern automatic transmission in the PowerGlide and later Turbo Hydra Matic. Or the Reese-Matic in my analogy? 🙂
FWIW the Bad Dynaflow of 1958 (the Flight Pitch Dynaflow) was a variation on the Chevy Turboglide, an oddball concept with multiple torque converter elements that was flawed from the start. The 4 speed Hydra Matics and the Powerglide were the only decent automatics GM made until the Turbo Hydramatic of 1964.
Thanks Jim for the reply.
+1 for the Reese-Matic!
I’m old enough to remember when straight 8 Buicks roamed the land, and I can still remember the sounds they made accelerating from a stop.
I’ve never had the privilege of driving either of these beasts. Though I’d kill for the opportunity.
As to your question about how the Buick drove, I do recall reading that the Dynaflow cars were indeed mushy off the line. But once they got going, word was that they felt quite powerful thanks to the torque-multiplying characteristics of the transmission.
My best friend’s mom had a ’57 Buick wagon, heavy beast. She floored it every time to get it moving.
Mr Regular, undoubtedly known to one or another here, drives a 62 LeSabre with Dynaflow in his newest video. Though not perfectly objective, he delivers a brief explaination and rather revealing driving impression of that outlandish (to my ‘ropean self at the very least) application of machinery.
A fun video. But someone needs to tell these guys that the only reason this car is getting 6.5 mpg is because it is not running right.
Such a problem to have in the recession year of 1958. Which premium luxury car should I buy? I like the Buick.
I’d take the Buick, firstly because I like overwrought and overchromed barges, but secondly, I far prefer the dash – more comprehensive instrumentation, and it is clearer and better laid out than the Caddy one
If that Caddy had been a 60-Special, I wonder if the result would have been different?
I`m not really mad about either one, or GM`s dumpy looking `58 styling across the board. But if I had to pick one, I`d opt for the Cadillac, as long as it has air conditioning. The Buick is just too ostentatious for my taste.
and speaking of a/c, the HVAC in both brands is disappointingly un-integrated, especially the Cadillac. When did GM finally ditch the aftermarket-look A/C?
I can recall seeeing Cadillacs that had rotted out bumper ends due to the exhaust being routed through the finned bumper ends, but I don’t ever recall seeing the same for the Buicks; in fact, it looks as though there was never any provision made for exhaust through those “Bulgemobile” ends on the Buick! 🙂
The tailpipes on the ’57 Buicks ended in rear bumper slots. The ’58s routed the tailpipes under and behind the bumper in a conventional manner. So in 1958, on both cars the bumper ends that looked like exhaust ports were just “dummies”.
Speaking of exhaust, the Limited had SIX mufflers (dual exhaust; one big muffler and two resonators per side), while the Cadillac only had FOUR (a muffler and a resonator on each side).
That Buick exhaust note must have been M-E-L-L-O-W-W-W-W!
The Cadillac; the Buick’s ‘styling’ is far too busy.
I think I would have taken the Cadillac, even as the base 62 series. I would have opted in the Cadillac for power windows and A/C, though. When I look at the Buick, what I see is Buick being uncharacteristically ostentatious, outchroming its nearest Cadillac relative, the Sedan de Ville. I would have taken the Hydra-Matic over the Flight-Pitch Dynaflow, too.
The ’58 Buick Limited was a one-year wonder, reprising the Cadillac-challenging Limited of 1936-42 – which included a range of semi-custom bodies by Brunn that Cadlillac brass got cancelled. In fairness to Buick, Cadillac spent the 30’s and early 40’s moving down into their territory, especially once the LaSalle was rebranded as a low-end Cadillac.
If the projections you are talking about are the “Dagmar” fender bullets, they were old school by ’58 – they were introduced in 1946, and received black rubber tips in 1957, after complaints of punctures in accidents.
These are unfortunate cars, and reinforce how Chrysler was the only brand to make the translation to four headlamps gracefully, although they would later go in their own bizarre directions.
I just spotted the Buick again–looks much better with the hubcaps ON!