As a young man during the mid 1960's and throughout the 1970's, I drove a 1956 four door dark blue Sedan with trunk mounted air conditioning with air vents overhead --- similar to a Boeing 707. It did not have electric window lifts...(it did have front power seat and high end radio and antenna). This car appeared to be (much?) shorter in body length when compaired with the Fleetwood, Coup deVille, and the more popular "pilarless" Sedan deVille models. I was told that this short (rear) deck model was called a "Park Avenue Sedan." The car had FOUR windows on each side... two rear vent windows were mounted at the very rear. On another thread, a gentleman informed me that the designation "Park Avenue" in reference to a short body length Cadillac came into being in the early 1960's models. I also note here, that when "The Self Starter" featured the MANY models offered during the 1956 model year, the short deck did not appear in any of the numerous pictures. Was my short '56 an entry level Cadillac, or was it marketed for city drivers who wanted a car with less length? Or were the cabin dimensions such that the car appeared to have a shorter rear end?
It was not a park Avenue sedan. The standard 62 series sedan was a short trunk car. The new for '56 sedan Deville had the longer coupe trunk.
The original 1956 sedan Deville was one of the most gorgeous cadillacs ever made. It was also Cadillac ' s most expensive years.
The front and rear face lifts were exclusive to that year. One year only front and rear bumpers, grilles, the wheels and wheelcovers, one year only gold sabre wheels option.
The sedan Deville that year was truly a coupe De ville cut with different doors. Simply gorgeous.
You had a Series 62 sedan which was the entry level Cadillac notwithstanding that it had the exact same interior space, front and back, and the exact same powertrain as the top of the (sedan) line, the Fleetwood. What you did not have was the wheelbase or extended rear deck of the Fleetwood. The Sedan DeVille used the wheelbase of the series 62 with an extended deck.
To my knowledge the 56 Series 62 was not called a Park Avenue as were those certain abbreviated deck cars of the early 60's.
Indeed the 56 series 62 is stubby, especially compared with its stablemates. It almost looks like a swollen Chevrolet.
Dan
Thank you gentlemen for the clarifications. When we consider just how may variations were available... and in this regard we are discussing sheet metal, door sizes-- hardware, etc. there existed so many models, colors, and interiors and SIZES.... not to mention, various options.... I drove my '56 to work--- a round trip of over 90 miles a day. I used the A/C, however, on hot, humid days, I used a washcloth over my neck and left shoulder, as the condensate from that powerful roof vented A/C would drip on me. ... it was a terrifically quiet and comfortable car. Aside from having to have the engine rebuilt because it would not pass NJ inspection, the only other challenging problem was that the steel wheels cracked (two fronts at the same time) --- I suppose due to flexing and the high mileage I accumulated on the car. By the way, I loved the proportions of the car... but then, in matters of taste, there are no arguments. Again, thank you for your answers... James
Actually, the 60 Special extention was between the wheels. There is a longer rear seat legroom by 3 inches. In addition, the 60 Special also had the longer coupe trunk.
They're not the same car in many respects.
So it's not just an extension of sheet metal... but wheel base and (additional drive train and suspension) hardware? My car, the entry level short deck 62, had the same built in windshield visor and a good deal of the same conservative aesthetic as the Fleetwood. It attracted a good deal of attention as it aged, because from 1957 on, automobile design departed entirely from Cadillac's 54,55,56 design cues. In the late 70's, I would often be asked about the car... it always seemed strangely discordant and so very formal. I loved the car, but alas, using it as a daily driver and in spite of a good deal of money and time spent on paint and appearance, the rust took over, so by 1980, I gave it to a restorer.
The sixty special was built on a 133 inch wheelbase, exclusive to that model. Roof, rear doors and floor were longer than the standard 129 inch series 62 cars. It also had the same size trunk as the coupes.
1966 had to be one of the most expensive years for Cadillac. With 2 new models - sedan Deville and Eldorado seville; the new front and rear end styling, new engine and transmission, new power brake system, gold grille and one year only gold sabres plus new 6 - way seat, power trunk and power antenna and first year for air conditioning in convertibles. So much went into what many see only as a face lifted '55.
So much new and so many models....so as GM was managing the 1956 model year, the company was spooling up for the dramatically different 1957 models....
I think the seville was introduced for '56 to compete with the continental mark I I. The brougham was running a year late and the top coupe was the coupe Deville so they needed another totl coupe.
so you are saying that the 1955-56 Seville models were "testing the market" for radical design departures, that came in big time for the 1957-1960 model years?
No. I'm saying Cadillac had to come up with a top line coupe so they created the Eldorado seville. It was competition to the continental. To have both a coupe and convertible in that series was a smart move.
There was no '55 Eldorado seville.
Quote from: Walter Youshock on December 06, 2014, 07:06:07 PM
Actually, the 60 Special extention was between the wheels. There is a longer rear seat legroom by 3 inches. In addition, the 60 Special also had the longer coupe trunk.
They're not the same car in many respects.
If that was intended to correct information I supplied please note I said
What you did not have was the wheelbase or extended rear deck of the Fleetwood. The extra rear leg room if its there at all (your assertion is new to me, I'll have to see if you are right) is negligible. I own a 56 Fleetwood.
Kind regards,
Dan
Sounds like it's time to break out the tape measures. ;)
Wally is indeed correct: Extended wheelbase was a hallmark of the 60 Special through until 1958. From 1959 - 1964, 60 Special shared the wheelbase length with all junior models; got its exclusive wheelbase back again from 1965 - 1976; returning back to the standard platform on the 1977 Fleetwood Brougham (now no longer designated a 60 Special) where it remained until the end.
Of course, this is all answered in Yann's database:
http://cadillacdatabase.com/Dbas_txt/Cad56-65.htm
Thanks for backing me up!
Quote from: ericdev on December 08, 2014, 09:09:50 AM
Sounds like it's time to break out the tape measures. ;)
Wally is indeed correct: Extended wheelbase was a hallmark of the 60 Special through until 1958. From 1959 - 1964, 60 Special shared the wheelbase length with all junior models; got its exclusive wheelbase back again from 1965 - 1976; returning back to the standard platform on the 1977 Fleetwood Brougham (now no longer designated a 60 Special) where it remained until the end.
Come on guys, please read what I wrote!
I was not arguing about wheelbase. If you read my post you will read that I'm aware of the wheelbase differences as I own the blessed car!
I was arguing about the differences in interior room between a 62 & a 60! Walter asserts the Fleetwood has three extra inches of legroom. I'm prepared to accept that if someone can prove it in that I don't have a series 62 to measure & I've always read interior space was the same.
Dan
The 1956 Data Book indicates that the rear leg room is identical in 60 and 62 series cars.
Many years of data books and vehicle information kits are available for free download at the GM Heritage Centre website (or you can spend the additional $50 to have them print it and mail it to you with your build sheet).
https://www.gmheritagecenter.com/gm-heritage-archive/vehicle-information-kits.html
I've attached the four pages in question.
I have had several of these 54-56 models, including both Series 62 sedans and 60 Specials (Fleetwoods). The wheelbase is longer on the 54-56 Fleetwoods, but they don't seem to have increased the rear leg room very much. If it is larger back there, it is just a little larger. My impression has always been that there is about an inch of additional leg room in the back, but I haven't actually measured it. If I remember to do this, I could compare the legroom in my 55 FW with that of my 54 S62 sedan.
Obviously, the trunk is much larger on the FWs. More importantly, the car rides a lot differently. You might not think the extra few inches of wheelbase would make much difference, but you'd be wrong. It makes a noticeable difference in refinement in the ride.
Hi Art,
I am fascinated by your final comment regarding "...the refinement of the ride." I opened this thread by asking questions about the 1956 model year, and the company's commitment to providing a vast range of exterior and interior designs throughout the 1956 offerings. Having spent many hours in my '56, model 62 short deck (18,000 miles each year for five years in commute) and then additional years and miles before I gave the old gal to a restorer, I always ASSUMED that the choice among models focused on design appeal and options. With the proper tires (inflated to specs), the car was exceedingly quiet, smooth, and powerful... (braking at highway speeds and body lean in turns were problematic!) So I learned a great deal from these postings that design differences were more than skin deep. Would you venture to explain the "ride refinements" in the FLeetwood? Was it weight distribution, suspension, etc.?
Rear legroom was definitely increased in later '60 Special models; I cannot speak for the '50s.
If wheelbase was greater, it stands to reason there must be more interior room, somewhere. Unless we're in the twilight zone. :o
Something just doesn't add up in the Data Book...
Quote from: ericdev on December 09, 2014, 12:17:22 PM
Rear legroom was definitely increased in later '60 Special models; I cannot speak for the '50s.
If wheelbase was greater, it stands to reason there must be more interior room, somewhere. Unless we're in the twilight zone. :o
Something just doesn't add up in the Data Book...
Perhaps they pushed the rear wheels back to make the longer rear quarter panels have a more proportional look. If they didn't do that, it would look like a long bed pickup on a short wheelbase chassis - wheels too far forward. Plus, you'd have too much body hanging out beyond the rear axle and that would make the car unstable over bumps.
Quote from: Dan LeBlanc on December 09, 2014, 12:48:30 PM
Perhaps they pushed the rear wheels back to make the longer rear quarter panels have a more proportional look. If they didn't do that, it would look like a long bed pickup on a short wheelbase chassis - wheels too far forward. Plus, you'd have too much body hanging out beyond the rear axle and that would make the car unstable over bumps.
Either that Dan, or they used larger seats which ate up the extra room.
It appears the things we'll need to bring this topic to conclusion are: A '56 Series 62 Sedan, a 60 Special and...a tape measure! ;D
The added length of the wheelbase on the 60S cars improves the smoothness of the ride quite a bit. The shorter the wheelbase of a car, the greater the angular change in the body for a given bump in the road. Likewise, the longer the wheelbase, the smaller the angular change. So with these longer wheelbase cars, you just don't feel the harshness of the bumps as much as on the shorter wheelbase cars. You might think, well, a few inches can't make that much difference. But you'd be wrong. The Fleetwoods are markedly more luxurious in ride quality.
Quote from: ericdev on December 09, 2014, 12:58:16 PM
Either that Dan, or they used larger seats which ate up the extra room.
It appears the things we'll need to bring this topic to conclusion are: A '56 Series 62 Sedan, a 60 Special and...a tape measure! ;D
Or indeed, the folks that wrote the data book knew what they were talking about.
If there was extra room to be had, you know darn well they'd be bragging about it to try and sell more expensive Sixty Specials!
The difference is definitely all trunk. Take a look at the attached:
FWIW - Richard Langworth's comments in Illustrated Cadillac Buyer's Guide:
"The Sixty-Special's four-inch-greater wheelbase seemed to add little to interior room while adding a great deal of bulk to the exterior, perhaps because of the extra trunk area which hung over the rear. This was a much bulkier car than a Series Sixty-Two: In 1953 it had been only nine inches longer, now it was thirteen inches longer, the difference being entirely in the trunk area. (The models retained their four-inch-wheelbase difference.)"
In my view, this extra "bulk" or overhang at the rear balances the car into three roughly equal parts: the front clip, the central body (the cabin), and the trunk. If you look at the car in profile, these three parts are very nearly equal and the car looks quite balanced.
The main reason I quoted Langworth was for the reference to the legroom.
As to the rest of his comments regarding "bulk" and whatnot, I respectfully disagree. To my eyes, the '54 - '56 Sixty Special is a beautifully proportioned automobile.
Folks who have owned 54-56 Fleetwoods fall in love with them. I sure did...
Quote from: Dan LeBlanc on December 09, 2014, 11:35:12 AM
The 1956 Data Book indicates that the rear leg room is identical in 60 and 62 series cars.
Many years of data books and vehicle information kits are available for free download at the GM Heritage Centre website (or you can spend the additional $50 to have them print it and mail it to you with your build sheet).
https://www.gmheritagecenter.com/gm-heritage-archive/vehicle-information-kits.html
I've attached the four pages in question.
Thanks for backing me up! I hate being wrong. I'll add that my 56 Fleetwood is by every measure my most favorite car, a car I bought because of a bad back. It's a long story. Suffice to say, among Cadillac automobiles the Fleetwood Sixty Special for 1956 was indeed the car of cars.
... I believe the 1956 short deck model 62 was the beauty contest winner --- but then, as the Latin saying goes... de gustibus non est disputandum! THank you all of providing such informative and delightful information. I shall never forget my mother driving our family's first Cadillac on the New York Thruway at over 100 mph. Neither she nor my father realized just how fast we were going-- the car was so very quiet and smooth.--- and there I was...an 11 year old sitting like a young prince on that beautiful brocade sofa like back seat...
Great story.
Well, I apparently jumped to a conclusion regarding the rear seat legroom. I just checked Roy Schneider ' s book. Rear legroom on both the 62 and 60 sedans was 46.3 and front was 43.3. It looks like the extension was added above the axle at the filler between the rear window and trunk lid. The 60 Special also has a longer fender skirt.
So, I learned something I never knew before.
Regardless, '56 was an excellent year and, to me, the most beautiful of the '54 through '56 design.
Quote from: Walter Youshock on December 09, 2014, 06:38:53 PM
So, I learned something I never knew before. Regardless, '56 was an excellent year and, to me, the most beautiful of the '54 through '56 design.
Me too, and thanks to you Walter. I never knew my fender skirts were longer than on a series 62.
Dan
Dan, Eric, and Walter sorted all this out correctly. In 1956 the 60 Special did have a longer wheelbase than the 62 Sedan, yet the passenger interior dimesions were identical between the two models. Most of the added length was in the trunk and NONE of it was in the interior.
It's interesting that this was also the case in earlier years. For example, in 1948 and 1949 the wheelbases for the 60 Special and Series 62 Sedan were 133 and 126, but the interior dimensions were still the same. In 1950 to 1953, the wheelbases were 126 and 130, but the interior dimensions were the same for the 60 Special and the Series 62 Sedan. In 1954 the 60 Special and Series 62 Sedan had wheelbases that differed by 4 inches, and the 60 Special was 11 inches longer (not a typo!). Yet the interior rear seat dimensions were the same.
If you go back to 1946-47, the 60 Special and 62 Sedan had wheelbases of 133 and 129. The 60 Special did have about 2 1/2 inches more rear leg room. But the Series 61 had a 3 inch shorter wheelbase and had the same rear seat dimensions as the Series 62. Go figure!
The Coupe De Ville's were generally longer than the sedans, but the rear seat leg room was sometimes (perhaps varying with year) about 4 to 5 inches less than for the sedan.
I first became intersted in all this when I discovered that my 1952 Cadillac 6219X was 11 inches shorter than the 60 Special (at just 215 inches long), had a 4 inch shorter wheelbase (126 vs. 130) yet had identical interior dimensions. The trunk lid was higher to preserve trunk volume, and I find the proportions quite pleasing. For me the shorter length was an advantage because of the size of my garage. But the Fleetwood 60 Special is surely very special!
John Emerson
CLC #26790
Middlebury, VT
Looking through Roy ' s book on the 1960's, he makes a side comment that the rear interior was longer starting in 1965 when the X frame was replaced with the perimeter frame and the 60 Special returned to 133 inches. I don't have any interior dimensions for those years. Remember that the '66 brougham option came with rear seat footrests that continued through 1976, although they seem to actually detract from rear seat legroom in the down position.
So, getting back to the mid 50's, I wonder if the floor pans and rear doors of the 60 and 62 sedans are interchangeable? Trim was obviously different.
My comment is only conjecture, but considering the dramatic "sea change" in design elements with the emphasis on LOWER, LONGER, with WINGS, we can only imagine the enormous push on the design departments to integrate recognizable design elements from each three year generation of Cadillacs (54,55,56) in to what evolved into the 1957 model. Design wise, the 1957 is extraordinary, in part, because, while it is a radical departure, it still is recognizable as a Cadillac. As we know, those cars were living room comfortable with two sofa-like seats, so it's likely not surprising that extra interior space was not a high priority...seems to me that the limos were stretched to accommodate the jump seats and to isolate the occupants from the driver by many cubit feet of space!
Actually, the '57 60 special lost about an inch of rear legroom according to the measurements in roy's book.
I'm glad we got this sorted out. :)
To be clear, is the rear parcel shelf indeed longer on the 60 Special?
Those 3 inches went somewhere. Makes me figure even the roofs of the 60 and 62 are the same.
Guess it was cheaper to tack on the coupe trunk, make a different skirt and some stainless than make a different floor and add more carpet and interior trim.
Also take into account the "b" pillars on the early '70's fleetwoods. That design element was also part of the mid '50's design.
All very strange.