The many '56 model Cadillacs

[Dan LeBlanc]

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. 

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.

[Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621]

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! 

[Caddy Wizard]

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.

[Dan LeBlanc]

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! 

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!

[Dan LeBlanc]

The difference is definitely all trunk.  Take a look at the attached:

[Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621]

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.)"

[Caddy Wizard]

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.

[Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621]

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.

[Caddy Wizard]

Folks who have owned 54-56 Fleetwoods fall in love with them.  I sure did...

[dplotkin]

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.

[James Landi]

... 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...

[Walter Youshock]

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.

[dplotkin]

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

[jdemerson]

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

[Walter Youshock]

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.

[James Landi]

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! 
 

[Walter Youshock]

Actually,  the '57 60 special lost about an inch of rear legroom according to the measurements in roy's book.

[Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621]

I'm glad we got this sorted out. 

To be clear, is the rear parcel shelf indeed longer on the 60 Special?

[Walter Youshock]

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.