GM vs Ford= Who was more advanced for their time?

[64\/54Cadillacking]

We can also throw Chrysler in there too, but for the main competition, let's just focus on Ford for now.


After watching a lot of old vintage car commercials on YouTube recently, it never really occurred to me on how advanced Fords were for their time. I also thought Fords were stodgy, old fashioned type cars from a styling standpoint, but boy was I wrong. I didn't know that Ford was already using a 3 speed torque converter transmission since 1952 I believe? While Chevys were using the less advanced lowly power-glide. And Cadillac, with the old Hydramatic up until 1964! Was GM simply late to everything? Because I always thought GM post-war vehicles were more advanced than Fords and had better quality too, but maybe that's my GM bias in me lol.

Even the body styling of a '52 Ford was very modern looking compared to a '52 Chevy that has the same styling since 1949.

Ford started using ball joint suspension in 1954, while Lincoln started using front ball joint suspension in 1952!

That is far earlier than even Cadillac which didn't start using ball joints until 1957. Ford also placed the brake master cylinder on the firewall in 1952 while Chevy and even Cadillac still placed it underneath the floor board for many years after.

It's these little things that it seems Ford excelled in making better cars than Chevy/ GM vehicles in the 1950's. Or am I wrong? Even the low line Fords used foam cushion seats for extra comfort while Chevy used a cheaper cotton type material. Fords had a Hotchkiss setup while Chevy used a torque tube setup etc..

Ford V8's also seemed to be better performing for many years than GM makes, but eventually Chevy caught up to them with the legendary 350 and 427 V8's.

I will say too that Fords twin-range turbo drive transmission is very smooth. This transmission was in the 1961 Lincoln Continental I used to own and also used on the later 50's Lincoln's.


Have any of you experienced owning old Fords and other makes besides Cadillacs from the 1940's-70's and how would you compare them to other GM vehicles?

[The Tassie Devil(le)]

Ford lovers will always say Ford, and GM lovers will always say GM.

A bit like Subaru lovers will always say Subaru.

Every maker had their good points, as well as their bad points.

Plus, some makes rust out faster than others.

So the argument will always go either way.

Personally, I like anything that keeps me dry in the rain, warm in the Winter, and doesn't break down to make me walk.   Even a Goggomobile isn't that bad.

Bruce.

[Clewisiii]

You can also say that some people introduce an idea before it is ready. So yes they might be first. But they have poor quality or issues. 

Oldsmobile had the first driver airbag in 73/74 Cadillac got it a year later.  Then airbags stopped until almost the 90s

In the 50s or 60s Ford almost killed off Lincoln until the success of the Continental. 

[PHIL WHYTE CLC 14192]

Both 50s versions of the Hydramatic were 4 speed transmissions.

[Jay Friedman]

Going back to the 1930s and early '40s, I owned several Fords, including 2 different '32 Fords and a '41 Ford.  My first '32 was a Fordor with a 4 cylinder Model B engine, similar to a Model A engine but it has a fuel pump.  My next '32 Ford was a cool phaeton (4-door open car) with an original '32 flathead V8 engine.  Though '32 Fords have some wood in the body, they have much less than '32 Chevrolets, which is one reason why there are many more '32 Fords extant today compared to Chevs.  Fords of that era are very good looking as well as being sturdy and solid.  The downside is that they have torque tube closed driveshafts, making removing the transmission very complicated. In fact, for various reasons, to change the clutch, you might as well remove the motor to do so.  Also, the front of '32 Fords is of complicated construction so, for example, removing the radiator is a multi-hour job. Although head turners, particularly the phaeton, after some years of ownership I got somewhat fed up and sold them.

At the same time that I owned my last Ford, I discovered '49 Cadillacs.  Very solid yet less complicated construction: overhead valves; open driveshaft, so can have the transmission out in a relatively short time; same with the radiator, etc.  And very driveable in modern traffic.  Bottom line is that once you own a Cadillac, it's hard to keep loving a Ford. 

[signart]

Yet Cadillac had fully synchronized manual transmission in 1928, and the Ford Motor Companies' luxury model, Lincoln, used the Hydramatic from '49-'54 or until forced to go with Fordamatic after the fire.

[64\/54Cadillacking]

The Hydramatic was and still is one of best transmissions ever made next to the TH400.

As the hydramatic was used by many different automakers in the 1950's.

It seemed to me maybe that GM thought that because the HM was used by many different automakers, including Cadillac for so many years, they probably figured that there is no reason to improve upon it.

So this forced Ford and Chrysler to come out with a more modern, smoother shifting transmission for their own vehicles.

It took GM until 1964 to finally compete with Fords and Chryslers 3 speed torque converter transmissions.

Obviously after owning vintage Cadillacs, it is really hard to compare them to anything else as they had the best of everything GM had to offer, including from its competitors.

For instance I do like the 1957 Ford Fairlane over a Chevy Bel Air, the intricate details were better on the exterior trim of the Ford. The Ford is longer in length and has a longer wheelbase over the Chevy as well. The stainless lip trim around above the windshield and rear window gives the Ford
added character and attention to detail.

The Ford Fairlane 292 T-Bird V8 engine made more power than Chevys 283 small block V8. Supposedly Fords body structure and integrity was better as well.

I was just curious to see what everyone's thoughts were regarding the topic. I appreciate all the feedback!

[James Landi]

I always "wondered" why my '56 Cadillacs had to have vacuum operated windshield wipers and old style king pins, when other cars had electric wipers and ball joints.  ALSO:  GM had plenty of time to fine tune torsion bar suspension, but instead, recommended very low tire inflation (24 front and 22 rear --If memory serves) to absorb the harshness, but by the time the down sized Eldorados with torsion bar suspension appeared, the ride was vastly improved.   

[signart]

Good discussion.
First production overhead valve engines: GM (Olds and Caddy) 1949 way ahead in design resulting in more powerful and lighter engines.
12V electrical systems: GM 1953.
The lowly Chevrolet had optional electric wipers in 1955, why didn't our Caddies?

[Bob Hoffmann CLC#96]

I like both companies, but.
Ford, in these areas, hands down.
Electric windows & seat. 1952 NO hydralic crap!!
Suspended pedals 1952
interior heating & cooling system 1949?
overdrive transmissions THAT'S a biggee!!
 AT brake pedal for 2 foot drivers. That's me!
 Many other things have already been mentioned.
 Bob

[64\/54Cadillacking]

Although I love the styling of the '67 Eldorado, I never did understand why Cadillac decided to make them front wheel drive and have a torsion bar suspension.

I always thought torsion bar suspensions didn't ride as smooth nor as soft as a coil springs suspension. That was a big mistake by Cadillac IMO.

Cadillac was first for many inventions and introducing new features in their cars. But possibly a little late to adapt other better designs like electric powered wipers.

At the same time, vacuum operated door locks personally is much better from a quietness and refinement standpoint over electric door locks. The major issue however is that those rubber vacuum hoses can rot and develop leaks. My '64 Cad has vacuum powered door locks and they are silent and smooth in operation better than any other electric door lock I've ever experience in a vehicle.

Cadillac did pioneer the V8 especially being the first in the OHV design for sure although Ford was the first to mass produce the flathead V8 that was available decades prior in their basic cars.

I think GM when faced with tough competition from Ford and Chrysler, they eventually caught up and caught on. But being the leader in the automotive industry by a long shot Vs the other makes, you'd think GM would be superior at everything it designed, but that wasn't the case. Chrysler for instance seemed to be the most playful with their designs and implementing things like the push button transmission and swivel seats which GM never offered.

I believe Buick was the first company in GM's lineup to use rear coil spring suspension all the way back in the 1930's or 40's? Cadillac took forever to adopt this design, again for being Cadillac, I would have assumed they would have wanted to offer the rear coil spring suspension on their cars right after Buick did for the simple fact that a rear coil suspension is superior in riding comfort over leaf springs.

[James Landi]

"I believe Buick was the first company in GM's lineup to use rear coil spring suspension all the way back in the 1930's or 40's? Cadillac took forever to adopt this design, again for being Cadillac, I would have assumed they would have wanted to offer the rear coil spring suspension on their cars right after Buick did for the simple fact that a rear coil suspension is superior in riding comfort over leaf springs."

While the original post asked for responses comparing FMC and GMC, we find ourselves discussing the mystery surrounding the apparent competition among GM brands, and why, the Cadillac division was apparently late in adopting basic, some good sense improvements that had been adopted by "lesser" GM brands. 

I suspect we'd need some expert to weigh in, and I would certainly like to know.   James   

[J. Skelly]

For several years, GM offered swivel bucket seats on some intermediates (Monte Carlo, Chevelle, Cutlass) starting with the 1973 models. 

[jwwseville60]

I like the torque converters in the Cruise-O-Matics in my 59 and 61 Lincolns. SMOOTH.
The Hydramatic was a darn good tranny, but lets face it, Caddy should have had the TH400 by 1961.

The AC in GM cars was, generally speaking, superior to Fords. In 1974 Ford borrowed the GM compressor, finally.

The 59 Continental is like driving a massive, powerful fire truck compared to my 59 SDV flat top. The Caddy is much more refined overall.


This discussion could go on forever.....

[tluke]

I've never owned a '57 Cadillac so I don't know if my '57 Continental Mark II's features were available in 1957 in Cadillac but besides ball joints and some of the other features mentioned in this thread, my Mark II (spun off as a separate Ford division for 2 years only, 56-57, before reintegrating into Lincoln), has the following features not available in my '55 Caddy:

- Positraction (limited slip differential) - Continental called it Directed Powertrack Differential
- A paper filter air cleaner rather than oil bath
- An oil filter that screws into the bottom of the engine rather than the tower oil filter setup
- Power vent windows
- Barbed torsion fittings that return the front suspension to a neutral position of "curb-height". There's no bounce in the suspension as it always wants to return to neutral height. With the ball joint suspension, the ride is superb.

Other than positraction and front suspension, they're not great technological advances but it surprises me how long Cadillac held onto that oil filter tower.

On the other hand, I was very frustrated rebuilding the power window switches on my Mark II. Each connector was separate where the Cadillac has the harness pigtail. One harness on the Caddy and all 4 drivers door switches are connected (8 wires plus main power). On the Mark II, the driver's door switch panel has a 2 separate connectors for each of the four window switches (, plus 4 more for the two power wing windows, plus another 4 for the power seat. Keeping track of all the wires, which one went where, which ones were up and down etc. is a nightmare. On the Cadillac, just plug in the switch panel to a single harness and you're done!

Additional Note: before posting I did a little research and found '57 was the first year for Positraction for GM and was indeed included as an option for Cadillac and included this warning sticker in the trunk by the tire jack. My Mark II has no such sticker warning:

[64\/54Cadillacking]

I like the torque converters in the Cruise-O-Matics in my 59 and 61 Lincolns. SMOOTH.
The Hydramatic was a darn good tranny, but lets face it, Caddy should have had the TH400 by 1961.

The AC in GM cars was, generally speaking, superior to Fords. In 1974 Ford borrowed the GM compressor, finally.

The 59 Continental is like driving a massive, powerful fire truck compared to my 59 SDV flat top. The Caddy is much more refined overall.


This discussion could go on forever.....

Yes the 61 Lincoln FMX or Turbo-Drive transmissions were very smooth solid transmissions. But I will agree those Lincoln's rode too stiffly for being a luxury car.

Part of that problem was how nose heavy they were. They needed massive coil springs to hold up that extremely heavy MEL big block 430 engine. But man, could that engine pull that heavy Continental with ease. The engine was very smooth too. A slow churner compared to the 390 or 429 in Cadillac. 465ft-lbs of torque at only 2000 rpm's was very impressive.

One major issue I found out with the way the car rode and drove was that If you put radial tires on the car, you would feel every nook and cranny on the road.

The Cadillacs in comparison were much more softer riding and floaty. You feel disconnected from the road in the Cads, while those Continentals felt more planted and sporty to drive.

I have no idea how the late 50's Lincoln's rode since I have never driven or been in one, but the '61 Conti's were much much smaller than the 58-60 Conti's with a small 123 inch wheelbase.

Definitely GM's Frigidaire A/C system was superior to Fords, specifically when the A6 compressor came out. I believe the A6 compressor is so powerful, that it could cool down an entire small house! It's rated at putting out close to 45,000 BTU's!

So I guess both companies had their share of "first". But I do agree GM should have came out with the TH400 a few years earlier, possibly even by the late 50's. I guess the Hydramatic was still that good for it to be used for so long.

It is one of first and still best transmissions ever made even if it's not the smoothest shifting tranny in the world.

[jwwseville60]

The Hydramatic in my 63 Fleetwood seems the most refined. It shifts smoothly from 1-2nd.