There were some very compelling reasons why Cadillac was creaming Lincoln and the Chrysler Imperial in the 1950s, and no they weren’t just its styling and fins. Aside from that and its image, the Cadillac was simply the best American car, and for that matter arguably the best in the world. Its performance, build quality, handling, brakes, ride, comfort, convenience features, amenities and even economy were simply superior. Well yes, certain European luxury imports were superior in some regards, but none had the combination of qualities and features of a Cadillac at the time.
Of course this would all change before long, but it’s instructive to remember—or learn via a road test like this—that Cadillac was still earning its reputation, instead of just coasting (downhill) on it.
Motor Life notes that Cadillac’s reputation was of course largely derived from the social status it conveyed to its owners. They set out to determine “if such extraordinary opinions are supported by the quality of construction, performance and design“.
ML points out that the Cadillac does not have a monopoly on any single important feature, but that it’s the only one that has the maximum number of them. It has the best of everything that was available on a modern car at the time; state of the art.
Performance testing, including high speed runs in the Mojave Desert showed that the Cadillac was the fastest volume American car at the time, with a top speed of a solid 116 mph (the Chrysler 300 was not a “volume” car). Cadillac’s 331 cubic inch ohv V8 was rated at 250 hp. Combined with the four-speed Dual-Range Hydramatic, it also offered brisk acceleration (0-60 in 11.2 sec.), and yet yielded exceptional fuel economy for such a large and heavy (4540 lbs) car.
“Roadability” was given high marks; it felt very solid, and was eminently quiet inside. Despite its size, handling was “easy”. The brakes were very good for the times.
Heating and ventilation were “highly functional”. Quality abounded in various ways, inside and out.
Although the Cadillac was of course more expensive, its exceptional resale value and good fuel economy gave it “certain qualities of economy“. This was a significant factor in the success of Cadillac in the ’50s and ’60s: it simply made sense to keep buying them, year in, year out, as their qualities and features were inevitably top-notch and the financial risk was very limited.
This is the foundation of Cadillac’s dominance of its market for several decades.
I recall Consumer Reports reaching a similar conclusion when they tested a 1962 Cadillac. Performance wasn’t as outstanding, but Consumer reports found the car well built and reasonably economical. They too noted the exceptionally low depreciation as a factor to be considered. All in all, Consumer Reports rated the 1962 Cadillac quite a good car despite the price. Coming from a magazine noted for their preference for economy models, this was indeed high praise.
In the 50s, Cadillac was indeed the Standard of the WORLD. The car was aspirational. It was THE American 🇺🇸 symbol of success. As Packard went down hill, Cadillac had only mild competition from Imperial and Lincoln. Remember neighbors rich relatives driving a 56 Sedan de Ville (with those fabulous DAGMARS). Best of all, a local business man had a black 58 Sixty Special. What a beauty. For me, that was so much more beautiful than the 59 space lilacs. Over the years I have had numerous upscale vehicles. Two were Cadillacs.My first was 89 RWD FLEETWOOD Brougham deElegance. Cadillac was once again Standard of the WORLD. Beautiful classic formal styling, OTT luxury, and feeling like you were in a bank vault when the door closed. SOLID! Unfortunately next Cadillac was 93 Brougham. Cadillac was once again heading in the wrong direction. Yes it had Corvette motor. But had significant issues including premature rust though of rear wheel openings, peeling of top layer of bonded leather drivers seat, general cheaper quality throughout. Carpet was especially inferior to plush deep pile of 89. AFTER end of full size RWD FLEETWOOD Brougham in 92, Cadillac (like so many others) no longer makes anything that takes my interest. The Standard of the WORLD is sinking. But even my 2007 Town Car Signature Limited (which I will never let go) is now the last of the GREAT AMERICAN Luxury sedans. But in the early to mid 50s, Cadillac WAS the Standard of the WORLD.
To nitpick a bit, the Fleetwood didn’t get the 260hp LT1 until 94. 93 still had less powerful 185hp L07.
The Fleetwood was definitely a throwback at that point, a (long) shadow of the past but far from the “standard” the 55 set against its contemporaries.
Not sure, Paul. I think I would select PACKARD in 1955. Technically, it has less HP, but it also weighs 300 lb. less. Ultramatic will be smoother and less “busy” than Hydramatic, which will not get its refinements until ’56 & ’58. Then there’s the Torsion-Level Ride, which provides a very level, flat, cushioned ride without much of the “squshiness” of soft suspension. A Packard will out-handle that Cadillac I’m pretty sure. Packard styling carries off the Mid-Century Modern look in a cleaner, more attractive way.
For the typical kind of driving these cars are meant for, I think Packard is superior. Cadillac excels in the things you see, feel, and touch, and Cadillac quality control is the best. But if someone got a ’55 Packard and worked the typical “bugs” out of it, I think it would be a more satisfying machine.
About 30 years ago, I test-drove a ’55 Packard 400 for about 15 minutes, and I have driven ’50s Cadillacs. So those are my observations.
You can argue technical details all day but Packard was a dying make. After the payment book is done in 1958, what was the trade-in value of each.
Packard styling, like Lincoln the other day, and Imperial as well, were all more contemporary in 1955, but the dated Cadillac had the “presence” that customers apparently wanted.
> I think I would select PACKARD in 1955. Technically, it has less HP,
Nope, the Packard had more HP, 275 in the Patrician sedan vs. 250 in the Cadillac.
I’d choose the Packard too – even more so in 1956, but yeah it would have been a scary purchase in either year given the company’s precarious state, quality-control problems, and low resale value.
Stephen, I’m a Packard guy, but it looks like Cadillac took the performance honors for 1955.
Consumer Reports tested a 1955 Cadillac 62 against a 1955 Clipper Custom V-8, the latter with the 352 V-8 rated at 245 bhp against the Cadillac’s 250 bhp, both at 4600 rpm. Packard claimed 355 lb-ft of torque against Cadillac’s 345. The Clipper’s curb weight was 380 pounds less than the 62.
Cadillac took only 10.4 seconds 0-60. Packard took 12.1. On a 9% grade, the Caddy topped out at 71 mph, the Clipper at 64. (Packard was faster in 30-40 mph and 30 to 50 mph acceleration on the grade, but Cadillac was faster 30-60.)
Cadillac mileage was also superior. It got 19.8 mpg at a steady 50 mph, to 16.8 for the Packard (which had a 3.23 rear axle ratio against Cadillac’s 3.36.) Overall gas mileage for the test was 13.9 for the Cadillac, 11.9 for the Packard.
The four-speed Hydra-matic must have helped Cadillac’s acceleration, but it’s interesting to note that a Consumer Reports test of a 1955 Olds 88 with the same transmission yielded a 0-60 time of 11.5 seconds in a 4080 lb. car, and overall gas mileage was 14.4 mpg, only slightly better than the heavier, more powerful Cad.
There really was something special about that early Cadillac V-8.
I really, really like the final (Detroit) Packards, especially with the minor revision for 1956 that hooded the headlamps on senior cars. A bigger 352cid V8 (374cid 1956); the Twin-Ultramatic is now able to start in 1st gear, and retains a lockup torque converter; Torsion-Level, which still makes a lot of sense to me… At the time, it would’ve been rough to justify buying a Packard over the Cadillac.
The Ultramatic wasn’t quite able to handle the torque from the new V8, which suffered from its own problems. Chiefly, an oil pump that tended to suck air, leading to clattering lifters and main bearing damage. The oil pump, curiously, also housed a vacuum pump to power the windshield wipers (just grab some electric wiper motors off the Studebaker parts shelf already, would ya?!). I think there were some early Torsion Level problems, which were ironed out pretty quickly. And if you weren’t buying for life, the depreciation on the Packard would probably sting.
I’m pretty impressed with the performance and economy figures of the Cadillac, and time has proven the mechanicals to be top shelf stuff. And yet I still kind of want that Packard!
Stephen,
I agree. I’ve had both a 1955 Packard Patrician and a ’55 Cadillac Fleetwood 60s, both loaded with options including Factory A/C. Both were low-mileage cars, always garaged, bought from the original owners.
The Packard was superior in acceleration & transmission smoothness. But as for ride and suspension, there was no comparison, as Packard was far superior because of the Torsion-Level Ride. Cadillac was a little bit quieter inside at 70MPH, had a much larger trunk, Both cars had the optional dual quad engine, & fuel mileage was about the same. Cadillac fit & finish was better [Packard had serious quality issues in assembly line matters, but that’s a different story for another day.] Cadillac had a superior A/C system, but it was still in the trunk, and I always prefer having cold A/C air blowing in my face, not down the back of my neck.
I’ve owned quite a few Cadillacs from 1949 to 1966, and while my red 1959 Eldorado Biarritz convertible & yellow 1956 Eldo convertible were both crowd pleasers, for Cadillacs, I always preferred the ’55 Fleetwood 60s for long drives and daily use. But when I needed to flat tow another car with a tow bar, I used my 1956 Imperial sedan.
FYI; My Fleetwood was ordered with all the options except wire wheels and a continental tire. and the original owner ordered it in bright red!
Great car! Interesting perspective! Haven’t you long held that the 55 Chevy was the best overall American car of its time (and maybe all time), Paul?
Apples and oranges. Back then, the difference between the Chevy and Cadillac was much greater than later years. The Chevy was undoubtedly the best (and quickest) low-price car. And the Cadillac was the best premium car. Different missions. I’ve long wanted one of each for that reason.
The ’55 Chevy advanced the state of the art, while the Caddy represented the culmination of years of refinement of the same basic package since 1949.
Having driven a newer Fleetwood that was still in Cadillac’s golden age (1963) I understand everything the article says. Cadillac, as a Division, was a well-oiled machine in those years and turned out a superior product every year. As much as I want to love Lincolns and Chryslers and Packards of that time, Cadillac seems to have perfected the art of providing a package of build quality, performance, handling, economy and features that nobody else could beat.
My mother’s Aunt Alma picked well – before she bought the black 1963 Fleetwood that I eventually came to own, she had a black 55 Fleetwood. I have also seen some photos of her with a 41 Cadillac, so she really lived and experienced Cadillac’s glory years.
The one thing the article did not mention – Cadillac stubbornly refused to switch to electric windshield wipers, sticking with the vacuum system until (I believe) 1958. This was WAY after most of the rest of the industry had switched to electrics.
Wiper tech was not settled just yet. Lincoln went hydraulic, not electric, back then.
Hey, Cadillac still has it. Caddies finished 3rd and 4th at the 24 Hours of LeMans this weekend. Though they did get beaten by a Toyota in 2nd place. Ferrari upheld tradition by winning.
Of course, none of those cars bear any resemblance to anything you’ll see at a dealer, unlike the Series 61 Caddy that finished 10th in 1950.
Good article.
One thing I enjoy in the reprinted reviews is the oft side advertising for products and services.
Is “Honest Charlies Speed Shop” is still open?
How about “Address Postcards at Home!!”?
Unfortunately I have neither of their zip codes to check ’em out.
For those around at the time, who could forget all the advertised gas saving devices of the 70’s? One could fill a museum with the actual products.
For me, the ‘56 Fleetwood was is epitome of understated class and luxury. My all time favorite car, which is saying a lot for this Lincoln man.
I have this article in one of my Cadillac anthologies, thanks for running it. A lot of people that are unfamiliar with vintage (or current) Cadillacs think that they were just dolled up Chevys. The Cadillac name was built on being the best all round big American car, outstanding in many ways; performance, roadability, luxury, economy and practicality. Remember, that at this time there were no high content, high performance, less expensive cars available. 116 mph!
I drove a ’57 Sedan de Ville back in ’77, since it was only 20 years old at the time, I drove it like any modern used car. It was completely at home on the freeway and around town. I previously had a ’70 Coupe de Ville, which was only 6 years old at the time. I drove that car hard and it was a great high speed road car. Very fast with good handling.
By the time I got my ’56 Sedan de Ville, it was almost fifty years old, and I treated it like the dowager that it was. Just taking it easy, but it could handle freeway speeds with ease.
One of my older buddies told me how his Dad had bought a new ’56 Cad and taken it on a trip to Mexico City, he remembered that the car was just fantastic.
Lately, I’ve seriously considered getting another used, later model Cadillac. Based on the great CC article by Tom Klockau, I’m seriously considering an XTS. It seems to be just what this ’55 Fleetwood was; a big, (relatively) smooth, comfortable, fast, road car. Even somewhat economical, especially when compared to a luxury SUV, and it looks like a proud Cadillac. Something that I could enjoy driving under any conditions.
I absolutely love my 2016 XTS AWD Platinum, and before that my 2008 STS V8 AWD, and before that my 2001 Seville STS. The XTS with V6 is not up to the performance level of the Northstar V8 (which I liked despite its early design flaws), but then it was more a replacement for the FWD DTS. The CT6 V8 was designed to be the luxury sport sedan, before Cadillac (and changing domestic market tastes) pulled the plug.
I just wish Cadillac had retained the CT6 (especially with the Blackwing V8!). The lack of a big Cadillac sedan is a huge negative for this lover of big American luxury sedans, despite my regard for Escalade. Escalade is nice enough, but is just too big and thirsty for my taste. Sorry, Cadillac.
As for build quality and attention to detail, I am very happy with the quality materials and workmanship of my car. With any car filled with complex modern electronics, there are problems. Realistically, the days of refining systems on other GM cars before incorporating them into Cadillac are long gone. Product cycles are too short for that. Even the vaunted Mercedes quality reputation has suffered from the days when you could expect a well-maintained example to last for decades.
I _LOVE_ this car ! .
I remember riding in the big limos, they were very quiet and had zero problem accelerating and passing and swallowed the pot holes easily .
I wonder how well one of these Coupes would drive if equipped with modern radials and HD gas shocks …….
Maybe up grade all the various suspension bushings to polyurethane too .
-Nate
The braking distance from 60-0 is impressive for a heavy, 1950’s car! I don’t think you’d find a heavy 1970s American car that would stop in any shorter distance.
Note the 20 mpg fuel economy in the test!
Who’d a “thunk” it?? If I was “guesstimating”., would a gone for “12”.
Cadillac’s is still a very much solid built Cadillac Automobile engineering is superior they still have the electronic crank shaft also adopted by Mercedes Benz and is still used today in their cars as well. Cadillac’s is still no. 1 in my book and always will be.
_NEVER_ apologize for being a FanBoi Lane ! .
Look at the ‘hair shirt’ vehicles derided here that I love .
In matters of taste, everyone else is _WRONG _
-Nate
It is interesting that several commenters prefer the last of the real Packards, while others mention some positives regarding Lincolns and Chryslers/Imperials. Yet compare any of them to the best from Rolls Royce, Mercedes, BMW, Maserati, Ferrari or other contemporary luxury foreigners – only Rolls offered an automatic (licensed from GM), none offered factory air-conditioning, or power steering, or power seats, or power windows, and all but Ferrari/Maserati offered anemic engines that were far less refined and likely no more economical than the Cadillac V-8. Even ride and handling were probably no better than the Caddy (or torsion bar Packard) as most still sported suspensions that were no more sophisticated than the Americans. Perhaps Rolls and Mercedes offered equal build quality and reliability, but US luxury cars in the mid-fifties were very well constructed so the gap would have been very small, and yet all these foreigners were much more expensive the US luxury models, offered uncertain servicing and resale value (especially outside import hotbeds such as CA and NYC), so you really would have wanted to have “something different” to consider such a purchase in 1955.
And by the mid-70s Cadillac, Lincoln, and Chrysler had pissed it all away.
Superb high quality product. And not flashy at all, pretty restrained indeed.
I wonder if the loss of competition in the luxury field with Packard’s demise and Lincoln a distant second and Imperial’s a distant third, if this is what caused Cadillac to stop innovating and begin the long slide into near oblivion?
The 1955 60 Special was a high point for the model in this era, benefitting not only from some of Cadillac’s best styling of the decade but also a redesigned B-pillar that was now much narrower and cleaner than the 62 Sedan, and with nice brightwork. In 1956 the SdV was all the rage, in ’57 the Eldorado Brougham was the top 4-door Cadillac, and by 1959 the 60 Special was a body share with the 62 sedan. All making the ’55 that much more special.
Packard had crippling quality lapses in 1955 and the Patrician was more comparable to the 62 Sedan, being 10-inches shorter than the 60 Special and lacking that car’s refined and restrained appearance. But it did have T-L. Lincoln was in its final year of the ’52 style while Imperial showed well enough with its new body, but the 60 Special was overall still tops in the minds of many.
Cadillac’s represent America well. Cadillac’s is still a very well built car and are able to compete with any car company today. Cadillac shows its authenticity in high performance and high quality built cars . It would be interesting if they could bring back the Coupe DeVille, Fleetwood Bromghn De De’elegance or De’ elegante.. Cadillac will always be no. 1 in my book because they’re the best