The 1948 Cadillac was the first true postwar design from the “Standard of the World.” Descended from a bulbous prototype called the C.O., it and its 1949-model successor have been the subject of some debate among General Motors most esteemed designers. Both cars look similar, but which model, the 1948 or the 1949, wears its then-fashionable styling the best? The big difference is in the “face.”
The 1948 Cadillac’s Origins
If you think that the C.O., pictured above, looks ungainly compared to the 1948 Cadillac, you’re right. According to C. Edson Armi’s excellent book, The Art of American Car Design, Harley Earl “abruptly changed his mind about the monocoque design,” saying, according to an interview conducted with stylist Bill Mitchell, “to hell with that big blown-up thing.”
Bill Mitchell also said that nobody liked the design, but they had been working with it so long that the stylists became almost locked into it. Earl, with one grand statement, changed the direction of postwar design: Mitchell said that Earl “threw it out, and put the fender down—right through.” Packard and Nash stuck with the bloated forms with somewhat predictable results, but Cadillac designed its 1948 model instead, albeit a little later than planned (by a few weeks).
The “Tiffany” Grille
Author Armi liked the 1948 Cadillac so much that he called it “the best postwar car under Earl,” a bold statement considering that the 1955 Chevrolet was also designed under Mister Earl. Armi especially liked the 1948 model’s delicate grille, which designer Frank Hershey called a “Tiffany front end…with very thin chrome.” He didn’t like it as much as Mr. Armi, saying that the grille had “any punch” or “guts.” Mitchell simply called the car a “big, bloated sedan.”
“Kettering” Power and a Bolder Look
The 1949 model fixed what Hershey perceived as a shortcoming, adding a bold grille that suited the new “Kettering engine,” the 331-cubic-inch overhead-valve V8 that replaced the 1948 model’s 346-cubic-inch flathead V8. The surrounding parking light trim was also much more massive, wrapping around the front fenders and seeming to be more in tune with Harley Earl’s show-off sensibilities, although Hershey said that Earl pushed for the 1948 model’s more “jewel-like” and “elegant” front end. He was a man of contradictions, as are we all.
Establishing a Theme
In retrospect, it’s unsurprising that Mitchell was not particularly excited about Earl’s rounded themes, especially considering how quickly he did away with them when he got the keys to the big office. But if you like late 1940s and early 1950s General Motors cars, you can see why Harley Earl was such an innovator. He keenly felt how far a buyer would go, and he knew that big swings rarely sold cars, hence the Packard and Nash Airflyte. During the war years, those squat, massive forms seemed aerodynamic and futuristic, but they weren’t very attractive. The lowered fender line and raised hood instead became a GM motif for five years, and the Cadillac in particular had almost racy proportions, with little front overhang.
Tailfins
And of course, the P-38 Lightning-style finlets stuck around for the next several years as well. An interesting anecdote from Armi’s interview with Frank Hershey is that Harley Earl wanted to eliminate the fins, having a last-minute change of heart. The stylists were able to redirect his attention, and in his next visit, he recanted. Earl said, “The public loves them. Leave them alone. Don’t touch them.” And with this, we had the tailfin for the next 10 years and then some.
As you can see, it’s hard to tell the difference between the 1948 and 1949 Cadillac Series 62 in profile; the front-fender trim is the only clear difference.
From the rear, there are three chrome ribs beneath the neat little taillights and fins. Here, we can clearly see the separate rear fender forms that, to be fair, Harley Earl was not too stuck-in-the-past to abandon when he restyled most of the General Motors lineup for 1954. I’d argue that Earl still “had it” until very nearly the end of his tenure.
This 1949 Series 62 sedan, captured in the Cohort by CC’s Staxman, is a little cleaner without the 1948 model’s trim, but I think it almost needs that little bit of extra glitz.
The interior bore few changes between the two model years, but…
It gives us an opportunity to look at the wild upholstery of Staxman’s great find. This car’s condition alone makes me prefer it, as I appreciate well-used cars with swirls in the chrome and paint, cars that you can park on the curb for all to see, cars that you can enjoy whenever you want. Aside from that, the 1949 car’s bold grille alone has always looked to me as a Cadillac should. So I’d take the ’49.
On the other hand, C. Edson Armi liked the 1948 Cadillac so much that it’s listed in the index eight times, compared to the 1949 model’s three. He brought the car up so often that I took notice, not because it is an unattractive car, but rather because it is the first time I’ve seen someone so clearly enamored with this particular model. I could almost feel the author’s pain when Bill Mitchell said that those postwar years were “pretty dumb with GM,” the cars being “decorated to hell.”
No, Bill Mitchell didn’t like them much, but the public did. The 1948 Cadillac had a delicate “Tiffany” grille, while the 1949 Cadillac’s more massive grille promised “Kettering power.” Which one do you prefer?
Related Reading
1949 Cadillac Series 62 Coupe de Ville – From Image Leader To Standard-Bearer For The U.S. Industry (by Aaron Severson)
I don’t really know the ins and outs of the 1940s-50s Cadillacs, but this morning the 1948 front end and the 1949 rear end appeal, for some reason.
Thanks for giving us a close look at these!
You’re welcome, George. I was glad to do it, because you really don’t see many of either model year out and about, but for some reason, the ’48 seems even rarer. Those are NEVER at car shows, let alone out on the road, at least in my experience.
Usually, the original design is best, and this is no exception. ’48, by far. Why does the ’49 need all that chrome to support a dinkum little marker light? And at the same time they removed the trim at the rear.
+1
1948 seems much more delicate, both the front and the rear have a sense of finer texture about them. In a direct comparison like this, the 1949 feels a bit dumbed down
Me? I would take the ’49 simply for the OHV engine.
Although I’m a huge Cadillac fan, my interest is more the 1975 to 1995 models. So I’ve never really paid much attention to details like this.
With that said, I will agree with those who like the 1948 more. Such subtle changes, yet the 48 really does look nicer to my eyes.
I’ll be odd man out and say that all things considered, I’d prefer a 1949 fastback. But I’d like the ’48s taillight stripes. I’ve never liked the tiny P-38 fins and think they look silly. But I do enjoy the larger fins that they spawned so it’s a wash.
I think that if they had kept the larger 1948 parking lights within the 1949 wrap-around fender trim, the 1949 would be just about perfect. When I was a child (born in 1948, of all years!), my mother’s aunt, who had a chauffeur, owned a black 1949 Sixty-Special. Perhaps my exposure to that car explains my preference for the ’49.
Those larger parking lights on the ’48 are the optional combined fog lights/parking lights/turn signals. They were available on the ’49, and indeed for many years after.
I think the more delicate grille of the 48 works best on this design.
I remain curious about the abrupt change in styling direction that followed the 48-49 C body cars (and the 49-52 A body cars). The 1950 C body, the 51 OB (88 and Special) and the 53 A body were all so much blockier than this graceful design.
I also prefer the ’48 grille with the cleaner ’49 tail light fins. The new OHV engine was a real breakthrough, and it was highly regarded. It weighed a bit less than the Olds V8 and put out more horsepower. The old flathead had a long run, and it was also a well regarded powerplant. My Uncle had a ’49 Sedanet fastback in the early 1960’s. It was a lower level 61 model, and I found the interior to be very plain compared to mid and later 50’s and ’60’s interiors.
Wasn’t that prototype car known as the Interceptor? I’ve seen some videos of it on a test track with some earlier Cadillac models as a comparison. Cadillac would have really shot themselves in the foot like Packard and Nash did, if they’d gone with that design. Change has to come, but you can’t get too far in front of the buying public.
Yep, it was also known as the Interceptor.
I think both look fine. Graphically, it’s like the same font in regular and boldface weights, with the ’49 also adding an underscore.
The principal goal of Cadillac stylists in the postwar era was to make next year’s car look recognizably different without obsoleting this year’s model. Occasionally, this resulted in some unfortunate lapses, but with these, even if you prefer one or the other, neither is bad.
Tiffany grille for me, it just seems more distinctive even though it’s not quite as bold, the turn signals are way better on the 48 than the 49 for my tastes as well. I’m not picky about the trim under the taillights, I like all iterations of the Caddy P38 fins, the 48s trim just adds an extra art deco flair which I’m A-ok with
I prefer the 1948 iteration over the ’49, but of course I’d want the OHV V8 of the ’49.
I also really like the P-38 style fins and wish Cadillac would have kept them in this modest size after 1956. Perfect taillight placement as well, high and visible from the sides. The really big fins of the 1957-61 models were excessive in my view.
I’ll go with the original. Harley really liked clean front ends – look at the Oldsmobiles of that era, or the ’55 Chevy with it’s ‘Ferrari’ grille that similarly got chunked up the following year.
There’s one other change between the ’48 and the ’49 you didn’t mention. On the ’49 a piece of trim at base of the C-Pillar continues the beltline trim and separates the roof from the body. May have made finishing easier as well.
When I photographed the ’49, I knew it had the new-for-’49 OHV engine, but I would have assumed that if you put a ’48 and a ’49 side by side, you wouldn’t be able to tell them apart from the outside. Shows how much I know about Cadillacs of that era. I’d take the ’49 for the engine. I assume the upholstery in the ’49 isn’t stock.
It looks like aftermarket seat covers to me. A 1949 Series 62 sedan would have had pretty conservative cord or broadcloth upholstery, which was only available in gray or tan — no leopard prints in a new Cadillac back then!
Et,
Am 92 years old….have them all..
I believe the ’48 still had the old (Tank Engine) and the
“new” 49 had the new “Overhead Valves” Also
48 had smaller grill…’49 larger…
I love the ’48….Whilst in the service…I shipped a ’46 to France…drove it there…until I sold it
to a Sargeant in the “Motor Pool” He loved it….
A great article, Aaron! Always fascinating to compare the finite changes that evolve the design.
One more difference between ’48 and ’49 that can be seen in profile and rear quarter view: the trunk lid of ’49 has been reprofiled to be less slopey, shaping the Cad more towards the soon-to-be-modern 3-box proportions. Very delicate tweak but has instant impact.
Thank you! And you are absolutely right, the trunk was squared up for 1949. I spent some time looking at the profile of the 1948 model’s trunk lid, and I like how it has a faster rake than other GM cars, but I failed to then look at the ’49, assuming it was the same. It’s not…good eye!
Team ’48 all the way. That front end is superb. And it doesn’t have any chrome trim on its C-pillar, which I prefer.
Not crazy about the three chrome bits underscoring the taillights, but that’s the only thing where the ’49 wins. Well, that and one other thing: the ’48 seems to only have one backup light (I assume those are backup lights?) on the driver’s side of the car, where the ’49 has two. Kinda like the symmetry of the later arrangement better.
I checked out a couple other 1948s online, and they too have only one backup light. I can’t believe GM styling would approve that; it’s the kind of thing you might have seen on a pickup truck, but you wouldn’t expect it on a Cadillac. (OK, pickup trucks wouldn’t have had backup lights at all…maybe one taillight!)
Something no one has commented on is that the ’48 and ’49 had entirely different dashboards. One of the photos shows the ’48 dashboard. In ’49, Cadillac switched to a rather plainer, nicely uncluttered dashboard that served, with modifications, through 1953.
I like the ’49 better but that’s why the devil is always in the details =8-) .
Many years ago (1973 or so) I was offered a ’48 Caddy sedan in decent shape, it had come into a huge Chevron filling / service station for a valve job, then the owner decided o abandon the car, engine still in pieces .
-Nate