1957 Cadillac Chassis Mystery and Questions

Hello, my name is Eric Hufstutler. I live in Richmond, VA and this is my first post here. I hope I am doing this correctly since I do not own a commercial or professional vehicle even though I would like to and my best friend works at a funeral home and drives their cars all of the time.

My interest is that I am in the process of gathering information for a book about chassis history and design, in particular the X-braced, X or Cruciform types on all vehicles. Currently I am working on the Tubular Center X style introduced on the 1957 Cadillac. I have a request and also a couple of questions in which may sound a bit strange and even more so in the way I will describe it so here it goes.

I am seeking hi res scans of the bare frame chassis ads seen in trade magazines for the 1957 Cadillac and the post 1965 style sans the X . That part wasn't that difficult to ask but this history question is.

It appears that the original design of this frame dates back to 1951 in tests prior to its intended original use on the 1957 Eldorado Brougham. But initially it had the triangulated shaped rear side rails under the trunk area which was seen as late as January 1957 in SAE Journals and promotional information. This car was delayed more than a year as they tweaked it and seems like the frame shape was altered as a last minute decision due to the problematic air suspension system and made more traditionally square. While the other Cadillac lines for 1957 only used the original triangulated shaped frame with leaf springs but changed also to squared in 1958... except for commercial chassis. The limousine made by Cadillac used the standard frame extended with squared rear section (post 1957) while they shipped off the odd shaped triangular frames for commercial use between 1957-1964. Commercial 1965 used the new 1965 perimeter torque box frame chassis while the Cadillac limo carried over the 1964 design.

1) Why did Cadillac use this odd design triangulated frame with triangle shaped gas tank on commercial vehicles - and for so many years?

2) Why did the factory made limousine for 1965 use the old 1964 body and chassis design?

Whew, hope I didn't loose anyone but if I did, please let me know and I'll try to clarify this.

And I would be greatly appreciative of any other commercial vehicle with X braced or X frames other than Cadillac with frame diagrams or ads, especially more unusual cars which I will gladly give a credit line for in the book.

Many Thanks ahead of time!

Eric

1. Tooling costs are the main reason. Production numbers were low compared to other models for commercial chassis and limo for all the years, say about 3000 a year [CC and limo together] where regular car numbers were 120,000+

2. Same reason, low numbers and traditional styling for the market of people who used them. Cadillac had to get the '65 cars ready, so they planned to use the 1965 calendar year to get 1966 limos ready. [1966 cars only needed minor updates comparatively. This was don't in 1949 as well for CC. So the tradition of keeping a body style past its counterparts "expiration" date was done before.

btw 57-58 broughams lost money because the tools made to build them cost millions and they only made less than 1000 over two years. GM still had that bill in mind in late 50's/early 60s.

True, to some extent since the Brougham cost $23,000 to build but sold for $13,000 each. It was a tremendous loss per unit and GM didn't care since it wanted a competitor for the Continental Mk II, who also lost money per unit. I had always found it strange that the Brougham's frame was altered at the 11th hour when it had been in testing stages for nearly 6 years prior in the form that ended up under the standard line of Cadillac and Commercial vehicles. I felt that the tooling of the new frame at the last minute was unnecessary unless I was missing something other than the vague statement it was for the air suspension, which had been tested on the triangulated design also years prior. But then again, the Brougham’s frame shape was used on the standard Cadillac line in 1958 so, the triangle was utilized one year only on regular production cars.

Now I see a difference in profile as well between the 1961 and 1962 long wheelbase frames where past the rear axle kick up, the frame is higher off the ground in commercial models versus the limousine. Again, was this a “commercial only” design and if so, the reasoning why (I suspect the rear tailgate)? But at the same time puzzled as to why on the 1957-1958 model commercial the gas tank was the same used on passenger cars in a shape to accommodate the spare tire, not in the same place on a station wagon style model. Then changed in the 1959 year to fill the space. Tooling costs again?

Any magazine ad scans available? Thanks again!

Eric

they 58 CC cars used the 57 tank and it was changed to the 58 tank in 59. the spare tire was not the reason for it. the spare was keep behind the front seat. they keep the 58 tank on all CC cars untell 71. the CC is a separate chassis with a incomplete body that all the manufactures used. will those that built on caddy's anyway. it was not shared with any other GM product.

most of us can't fathom the working of any board and GM would be no exception. I do know they were a for profit company and most things can be explained that direction.

John, true the spare tire is stored elsewhere but the 1957-1958 gas tank used on the CC cars was used on standard 1957 Cadillac's and unusual in shape to accommodate the spare tire well. So why not use the 1958 style seen on the 1959 on the 1957-1958 initially since the design shape was not useful for a CC?

Also... may be a easy question to answer. Why don't I see CC vehicles restored body off?

Eric

Eric Huffstutler said:

Also... may be a easy question to answer. Why don't I see CC vehicles restored body off?

Click to expand...

Depends on who you know, what you pay attention to, and where you look. It happens. Nobody else can answer why you don't see something however.

And yes - that was easy to answer.

most don't need a body off and there is not a source of equipment that will let you mount this big of body on to rotate it. . let alone safely and easily lift it back off and on. but I to have seen it done. the only advantage of a frame off is to detailed the chassis. which for a car you want to drive is a wast of money better spend else were. by the time the frame is rusted to were it not usable the body is to. to raise the car complete on a lift sand blast and re under coat is the most you will need to do on the average rough car. if your redoing one to putting it in a museum they don't have mirrors on there floors.

the "why" answer is money. GM used this line of chassis to get rid of excess parts. simple as that. but why would you think you should put a 58 tank on a 57? also there is lead time and necessary re tooling . why make a change you don't have to, for a limited production line. this way they could keep the chassis rolling to the manufactures with out a mid year change. and they did not have to use up the supply of new tanks for the first year in 58. pure guess on my part. questions you need to ask GM.

Thanks John, keep in mind CC cars are all new to me and I am researching the differences between them and production cars and limousines. I can be a bit analyatical at times but that is the neture of the beast when doing a book that you want to be as close to 100% accurate as possible.

As for the restoration part, if it is a show car I would think that it too would go through the same processes that a regular passenger car would but see your point about equipment limitations outside of forklifts. I was thinking about rust prevention, body bushings and shims, etc... and not necessairly a daily driver but what some call a trailer queen.

Who would I have to contact about those ads?

Thanks again!
Eric

I suggest that you purchase the books that have already been written by Messrs. McPherson, McCall, Merksamer, etc., and start reading them. That way, you will have a "history" of how these cars were built, and about the changes that were made through the years. When one writes a book about a subject that they don't know, they usually start with the books that were written by the people that do know the subject matter. Your questions are just eliciting opinions, not facts, and the facts are what matter most in books. You can find these books here. The "Black Book" is out of print, however, you can usually find copies on eBay, and some online used book sellers.

CC Info

I did not have a scanner big enough ,so these are the best I could do with a camera.

Thanks for the frame info, I also was curious. In my Kaiser's, the x-frame was carried over to GM by Howard Dutch Darrin, he is also a former designer for Duesenberg and Packard. The dips in the sides of the 55-57 Chevy was his trade mark carried over from his work at Kaiser. The frames were a design he used at Kaiser and Duesenberg for allowing for easy modification for a number of bodies, Ford also utilized it in the 63 Galaxie Convertible. One advantage to the x-frame in roadsters, if you destroyed your universal joints or tore out the rear pumpkin, the drive shaft didn't polevault you down the road. The x=frame was used in many automobile applications, for the one used in Duesenberg, Packard, Kaiser and Cadillac had a longer cross in the middle of the vehicle making it stronger and less crush resistant. Howard's most famous car is the Kaiser Darrin built on a Willys chassis, after he took his cars with him he put Cadillac motors in the Darrins and sold them from his Hollywood studio. He leased all of his designs to the car manufacturers.