Imagine being in the market for a new American car in 1949. What a time, what choices! Statuesque Studebakers, portly Packards, handsome Hudsons, curvaceous Cadillacs and many other alarmingly alliterative pairings would flood the mind. Another one might be: pity the poor Plymouth. Mopar’s entry-level marque really got the short and dumpy end of the deal during the Detroit-wide postwar redesign.
The story of how the 1949-52 Chrysler products got to be so upright and boxy is well-known – big boss K.T. Keller imposed his somewhat radically blinkered views on the engineers and designers he employed. CEOs who pig-headedly micromanage their companies almost invariably leads to piss-poor results (to this very day), and this generation of Mopars is a case in point. Or so it is claimed.
The first truly new postwar Plymouth was a bit of a latecomer. Aside from newcomer Kaiser-Frazer, the first major US automaker to launch an all-new body was the 1947 Studebaker, which was actually launched in the spring of 1946. An odd choice, given that demand for cars of any sort was so high that most carmakers were quite happy amortizing their ’42 tooling for a while.
Ford launched their all-new body in April 1948 as a ’49 model, but then the company’s dwindling sales demanded prompt action. Plymouth, on the other hand, kept the old generation P15 going well beyond the traditional early autumn model year changeover: the real 1949 models were only launched in March 1949.
The P17/P18 Plymouth was finally here, with its half-dozen body variants, including the brand spanking new all-steel Suburban two-door wagon, spread across two wheelbases and available in two trim levels (“De Luxe” and “Special De Luxe,” just like the previous generation – my, the PR department was inspired, wasn’t it?). Fully integrated front fenders were a minimum requirement. The rear ones would have to wait. Musn’t rush into these things, you see. I mean, just look at those poor obese Packards. Too much, too soon.
Under that tall hood lay a good ol’ cast-iron 218ci (3.6 litre) 6-cyl. with its head all flat (they prefer to be called “L-head,” apparently. Political correctness gone mad.) In Europe, overhead valves were already the norm, and overhead cams were on the drawing boards. American engines of the period were already operating on a different philosophy: less stress, more torque, no superfluous complexity – it may have seemed less sophisticated, but it certainly increased reliability.
So the new Plymouth arrived a bit late to the party. Was it worth the wait? It depends what you were expecting from your 1949 economy cars. Not everybody cared that the Plymouth looked a little frumpy around the edges. Folks who liked to drive with their hat on (and there were a lot of them in those days), for instance, would have found this car much better suited to their needs.
And I must say the interior is superb. After all, if you’re going to buy a car, that’s what you’ll be looking at the majority of the time, so having a handsome dash and a lot of headroom can’t be a bad thing.
And there’s the legroom to match in the back, too. That’s not to say that other lower-priced American cars were tiny, but they do seem to be a little less generous that Plymouth were for their passengers. In fact, let’s take a gander at the choices one could find in 1949 and see what the sub-$2000 6-cyl. sedan landscape was like in the United States.
This is the first time I’ve attempted one of these tables for an American classic, and compared to European ones, the thing that stands out is the homogeneity of the cars on offer. The Nash does stand out due to its unit body construction, though – not to mention styling. The cheapest DeSoto would also just fit in this table, but Hudsons and Kaisers cost quite a bit more. The other conspicuously absent rival is the V8-powered Ford, which cost less than the Plymouth.
The Ford and the Chevrolet were formidable opponents, to be sure, and they seem to have handily outsold the Plymouth: Ford sold over 1.1 million of their 1949 cars, Chevy managed 1 million – and Plymouth only built 520k. It seems pretty cut and dry, but it’s quite unclear to me whether we’re comparing apples to apples here. The ’49 Ford ran for almost a year and a half, whereas the Plymouth ran for about six months. Or does the 520k total start from December 1948 and include the last P15s? I’m sure the CCommentariat will have a view on this.
Whatever the answer to this production number riddle may be, Plymouth’s lower tally is still pretty impressive – and would remain remarkably stable, which sounds like a good thing, but really isn’t. The 1950 and 1951 models sold a little better (over 600k); the ‘52s fell just under 400k, though that was at least partly due to the Korean War’s impact on the economy. For those years, Ford and Chevrolet were selling roughly twice as many cars as Plymouth. Keller’s boxy gamble did not pay off.
Time heals all wounds and makes lowly economy cars look positively glamorous. Even this Plymouth, though it tries its hardest not to be. Bodied as a sedan, dressed in grey and shod in black (quite right, too – this is not a convertible, nor a Chrysler), it should be destined to be an eternal wallflower, overlooked rather than looked over by everyone but the most ardent Mopar maniac. Not every car has to be remarkable, ahead of its time or exciting. From a 2024 perspective, however, it’s a refreshingly sweet and unpretentious slice of postwar Americana.
Related posts:
Cohort Classic: 1949 Plymouth Special DeLuxe Club Coupe – It’s Pretty Special To Me, by PN
Car Show Classic: Home Blown Flathead Six in a 1949 Plymouth Special Deluxe, by David Saunders
CC Comparison: 1949 Plymouth Suburban Wagon and 2017 Toyota RAV4 – Almost Identical Dimensions, by PN
More quality than anything sold since.
CV driveshaft, wrapped leaf springs, easy maintenance.
Would cruise all day at 65 and the aerodynamics were such you could hear birds sing outside.
Great cowl vent.
Would pull any hill, usually in 2nd.
And look at that dashboard!!!
Made the best taxi of the bunch. I would have found the Ford irresistible for styling and price.
The complete new 1949 Chrysler Corp. line has to be seen as a failure inasmuch as Ford regained the #2 spot, and never looked back. Excellent cars, but not what the post war market was looking for.
I once rode in a 1948 Dodge like this one. It was nice–comfortable seats; lots of room; cushioned, level ride; smooth, quiet engine. Very solid. I thought, “This COULD be a daily driver without much sacrifice.” The handling is probably poor, but I wasn’t driving!
There are more of these late ’40s-early ’50s Mopars around (and listed for sale) than the “exciting” Forward Look 1957-61 models. SOMEONE wants them, because the ads disappear and I assume the cars are sold. They still keep popping up in unlikely places–they somehow continue to survive the decades.
They also offered Fluid Drive, when some competitors only offered standard transmissions. I don’t think the styling is bad at all. Probably the best cars in their field at the time.
Fluid drive came later. Dodge just had standard 3-speed while GM competitor Pontiac already offered the fully automatic Hydramatic in ’49. Of the low-price three, Ford had overdrive, Plymouth, nada. Chevy would introduce Powerglide a year later. Chrysler products may have been built sturdier, but engineering innovation was left back in the 1930’s.
Fluid Drive was available on Dodges, which I take it is what Steven is referring to here, as early as 1941.
https://archive.org/details/dodge19
Plymouth was indeed hurt by not offering any sort of automatic or even semi-automatic shift until the oddball Hy-Drive in 1954. How many sales it cost them is impossible to say, but it must have been substantial.
I was going by the table in this article above, No optional Dodge transmission listed.
I see what you mean. Well, no need to belabor the point, since this is a post about the 1949 Plymouth, but it seems the semi-automatic M6 transmission was optional on Dodges starting in 1949. I’m sure there are better references somewhere.
https://56packardman.blog/2015/01/10/chryslers-fluid-drive/
Okay, Collectible Automobile, October 2003, has an article on the 1949-52 Dodges by Richard M. Langworth, which says “Coronets could be ordered with a new Gyro-Matic semiautomatic transmission that featured two speeds in both ‘low’ and ‘high’ ranges (the latter used for normal driving conditions). Once a range was selected by a driver, Gyro-Matic would sedately change speeds within it.” I feel better about citing that than somebody’s blog….
AFAIK, the Meadowbrook sedan was only available with the 3-speed manual.
Fluid Drive was standard on Dodges from ’49 to ’52, and the semi-auto was optional. You couldn’t get a hard clutch in those years.
Thanks for the comparison—and for giving us great views, inside and out.
Popular Mechanics, April 1949 (Google Books) has a great multi-page writeup of Chrysler’s new array, with much explanation of the corporation’s goals/choices, etc:
https://books.google.com/books?id=SNkDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA119&dq=%221949+plymouth%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjT0tXtucqIAxWoC3kGHVbaL7YQ6AF6BAgIEAI#v=onepage&q=%221949%20plymouth%22&f=true
Dumpy, but just darn good cars, no wonder many still survive. My Grandma had a maroon ’50 Dodge Cranbrook from new to 1967 when she could no longer shift the fluid drive and it never gave her a lick of trouble. Comfortable, dependable… who needs style?
These postwar Chrysler Corporation cars were frumpy but solid and well-engineered. The Briggs-built bodies were quite rust-resistant for the time. Here are 4 that I found in semi-abandoned condition, but look at how well they’ve held up.
Top left: 1946-48 Dodge, top right: 1950 Dodge Coronet, bottom left: 1951-52 Plymouth, and bottom right: 1950 Chrysler Windsor.
Frumpy & dumpy looking yes but these were stellar drivers and with their dual leading shoe front bakes they were safer too .
I find it humorous how the yellow drop top looks so big when in reality they were not .
The best looking of these were the coupes ~ I still find them quite beautiful .
-Nate
Ha, the yellow ragtop looks big because the ad has the miniature people inside!
Great article comparing the choices one had in 1949 amongst the major domestic automakers. Does anyone know where these pictures were taken? Looks like a car show but in which city? Thanks if anyone knows.
Yes, Tokyo; Tatra87 reports regularly on curbside classics he sees there.
thanks, had a closer look at those license plates, and they appear to be japanese characters.
These were the most common American cars of their era when I was a kid. Frumpy and dumpy looking compared to the competition maybe, but they lasted and lasted. I remember one bring used as a daily driver into the early eighties, only taken out of action when a power pole fell on it and bent the roof. It would have been still driveable.
Interesting to see how much more expensive the Plymouth was compared to the ‘other two’, or the Studebaker.
One question puzzles me. Some authors say that the 118″ Plymouth had its own body in ’49, then joined the upper three brands in ’50. A close look shows lots of dimensional differences between the ’49 Plymouth-only and the ’50 all-brands, but the differences are subtle. The 111″ Concord was unquestionably different.