Interesting video. I am 71 years old and can remember when cars had different styling according to the manufacturer. Styling was very important and sometimes changed noticeably every year. The 55,56,57,58 and 59 Chevys could easily be told apart. Contrast this to current models, which are mostly SUVs and look almost the same. The old days were much more interesting when you consider styling.
55 and 56 were similar, and Chevy reacted crazy in 57-58 when they saw what Chrysler was offering... flipped the 3 year body script on the end... GM went nuts in 58 to try to counter them. For 59 I like the dodge or the Buick... two of the meanest cars ever made :)
What I really dislike today is how vehicles have a “corporate look”. I was in the car business my entire working career. I cannot tell one Lincoln from the other. Other makes are similar.
And now, there's only one Jaguar that looks like Jaguar. The rest looks like BMW, Hyundai, Buick, Honda. Not even Bentley can build an SUV that doesn't look just like all the rest.
You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT about the "appliances" that are called cars of today. I am pushing 80, so I remember when I could tell the make AND the year of a car A BLOCK AWAY! Today, I have to walk up to vehicle and either look at the emblem or the center wheel cap to JUST determine the make, never mind the year! I currently own a '13 Ford Focus, in traffic I frequently mistake a Hyundai sedan for a Focus until I get within about 20ft of the Hyundai. Although, those BEAUTIFUL CARS of days gone by were a delight for the eyes, there is NO comparison as to reliability and the freedom from required maintenance of today's appliances!
One thing important to us kids back in the earlier years, as in the late forties, and then the fifties... every boy worth his salt knew what car was coming down the road at a first glance. I am seventy three now and gain one more if the lords willing this year. I remember comments made by the men who drove those days ... like the man drove and his lady sat near him... kids sat in the back while little brother or sister who was in a baby seat was near mom and the heater. We froze our butts off in the back cause dad always had the window down on his side. Mom would either be knitting or feeding the brat up front. We also knew cars by the sounds of their engine from a long distance... the fords always had a nice rumble where the six cylinder chevy was noisy. Plymouths and dodges were just plain hard starting when the engine got warmed up and so we kids would push the car and dad would pop the clutch. Dad always had a beer going and us kids might get some water from a hose at the service station.... best go pee right then cause no more stopping for a kidney break. I also remember that cars were status symbols then and almost all nicer two door hardtop cars had the V8 engine... chevy came late in the eight cylinder engines... and dodge flathead engines were not as easy for people to get service in our area.... that was a big thing back then... who ever had the most money in town drove a certain make rig. From then on, everyone one else would copy the rich folks. From town to town, it was always all one make of rigs on the road. One town would all be chevy and the very next one would be a ford or chrysler product. I am of course biased on ford cause that was what my dad drove. My uncle drove a rambler and we always laughed at him in his box car.... but they were real cheap to buy. My dad was a white man and my mom was native..... I was not allowed to go to the white school with the other kids because of my skin color. I had two mexican boys for a friend and their sister did like me enough to give me a kiss now and then but it would cost me my change in my pockets for her soda or candy. It was the same for each town, me being a native was closed off to the bars serving alcohol... indians should not be served... when I got home from vietnam, I thought that would change but it was different alright as the names called were much meaner and I found myself going to work in alaska the only place where I was equal to the other men.
Even being a Ford guy i would take either one of these cars over the computers on wheels you buy today theses cars lasted well considering the bad oils and rough roads they drove on back then
My first car - 55 Plymouth Belvedere 4-door. I was 20 and the car just a year younger than me. Very reliable, Overdrive transmission & Flathead 6 returned 26mpg on the highway. Cost me $73 to get all seats professionally reupholstered. I'm sure glad my wasn't an automatic. That skinny dashboard mounted shifter looks like it's ready to punch itself right somebody's eye socket in the event of an accident.
As was the steering ready to go through your chest, but look at the bright side, your next of kin would have that plymouth looking like BRAND NEW for about $200 (in 1955 dollars)!
I have a 55 Plymouth Belvedere that is currently getting a Resto mod treatment, there is one currently being used as a drag car on the motor trend you tube channel if you feel like taking a look
My First Car, (That I Still Have Today), Is A 1938 Plymouth Coupe That I Got Off My Grandfather In 1970, Who Became Too Old To Drive It. But A 230 Flatty Six From A 57 Plymouth Mounted Right Into It With A 1936 Chrysler Overdrive Tranny That Also Bolted Right Up To Everything Too. A New Interior, Red Paint Job, Sport Wheels, And A Shortened Driveshaft, And I Had A Cool Cruiser On A Young Fellows Budget. Even Though Ford's And Chevys We're The Cars To Have Bach Then In My Area, Plymouth Was Under Appreciated Indeed...
And it was probably a film strip, not individual slides. If the projector did not have automatic advance a human could hear the beep and do it manually.
In the 50's, brand loyalty was stronger. Men or boys ( I was a boy in the mid 50's) identified with the cars. Interesting fact, the '57 Chevy was less popular than the '57 Ford. '57 Fords actually out sold '57 Chevys. T-Birds were more popular then Corvettes. Chrysler & Studebaker cars had a reputation of rusting out quickly.
Chrysler stole a ton of market share in 57 from GM... And there was a contention of Ford selling the most cars :) they both declared themselves the winners.
Chrysler, in the mid to late '50s (and even today) was THE poster child for BAD BUILD QUALITY! GM had the best QUALITY in American made cars..........btw, I am a Ford fan-boy!
I'm generally a mopar guy. But the 55 Ford was and is a better looking design. Fords wonderful side spear from top of the front fender, sharking down to return back on to the straight narrow to the tail lights, is always a stand out. The 55 Plymouth look's a little frumpy, but still, well made and tough. My dad, uncle and myself have owned these 55 Plymouth's at different times. My dad's Plymouth had done 340000 miles, same poly v8 and 2 speed AT. Back in the day that was incredible mileage. My Ram 504000 miles, these miles are much more common now days. But in 1970 not many cars could approach that mileage, of dad's 55 Plymouth. Unless on the 3rd engine, 2nd trans, not to mention the numerous rebuilds. Great video!
I used to watch these "unbiased" comparisons when they first aired on my "big screen" 21" Admiral, back in the day. As a pre-teen, I didn't really didn't really know much about automobiles. Now when I view these videos, they are absolutely hilarious! The comment about the advantage of the "canted valve" arrangement in the Plymouth engine, allowing the exhaust FUMES to exit more easily. Is this so that you don't SMELL the exhaust? And comparing the "old fashioned" Ford front suspension to the "modern" coil spring suspension of the Plymouth, so ADVANCED was this suspension, that 2yrs later it would be replaced by a TRULY ADVANCED "torsion bar" suspension! I could go on and on, there is SO much hype and misinformation in these vintage dealer "training aids"!
they definitely played loose with the facts... Ford would tell us for years that tubeless was much safer than tubeless tires... Desoto talked about it in my latest video... But Ford advertised it like tubeless was going to kill us all...
The REASON For The Valve Configuration In The Combustion Chamber Of An Engine Is So That IT "BREATHS" Easier. So The Combusted Fuel Exhaust Can Exit The Chamber Easier, Quicker And Cleaner For The Next Mixture To Enter And Be Fired Off. Thus A Bit More BANG For Added Power. That's Why They Have 4-valves For Each Piston In Many Engines Today, And Turbo Chargers To RAM The Air Into The Combustion Chamber As Well To Squeeze Even MORE Horsepower Out Of Smaller Engines. And BEFORE Manufacturers Installed The Completely Different MacPherson Struts And Rack And Pinion Steering As They Use In Today's Cars; The Engineers And Designers Were Still Trying Better Methods To Achieve The Best Ride And Better Steering Control Of Those HEAVY ALL STEEL CARS At That Time. That's WHY They Had LARGER Steering Wheels, To Turn The Front Wheels Needing Greater Arm Effort, Compared To The Almost Effortless Power Assisted Smaller Steering Wheels On Cars Today, That You Can Turn With One Finger. I Guess You Just Have To Have A Better GRASP Of Mechanics To Understand WHY The Seemingly Small Advancements We're So Important In Those 1950's Advertisements...
Also better flame front advancement,shorter path from more central located spark plug tip ("fast burn") and fewer "pockets" to trap end gasses that tend to detonation @@davemckolanis4683
I always love these vids. Having been a commissioned salesperson before (non-automotive), I'm happy to see the absolute nonsense and hyperbole being exposed in these "sales" vids. No wonder that they hid these presentations from the public for so long. It's all biased bs that big corporations feed to their sales force to try and make a buck, and can claim is "adequate training" offered to the salespeople who are kicked to the curb by the corporations when the products they're given to sell are inferior to competitors. Corporate greed and slime at it's finest.
yeah the 50s advertising stuff is great... HI BOB! LETS talk about blah!. There issome truth to these though.. they all played loosly with the facts... You'll see they didn't drag race for a reason :) while the winners video will include the drag race :)
They forgot something; Ford's Speed Trigger actually debuted in mid 54, so even that wasn't new! Ford did do a good job with their 55 styling though. Most people don't realize that it was an updated 54, not a brand new car the way the 55 Plymouth was.
I like the 55 Ford, probably better than the Plymouth... Plymouths are rare as heck because they were basically free... worthless and still not very expensive....
So much was changed with the 55 Ford that it looked like it was all new but it wasn't. And the station wagon got an entirely new greenhouse. The 1963 Chrysler was a similar do-over but you could see that it was basically the same car with the unchanged station wagon greenhouse.
Had a 55 Plymouth Belvedere 4 Dr yrs ago. Bought it from original owner around 1976. Had Powerflite tranny and V8 engine. Kept it about 5 yrs. Sorry I sold it.
Wedge was the cheapest. I believe the Poly did offer slight better fuel economy,everything else being equal (which it was not unless you had the manual transmissions) I guess the Hemi just didn't sell with its extra cost.
@@davidpowell3347 The original Chrysler 1951-1958 Firepower (hemi) V8 engines were not only expensive to build, but they also got crummy gas mileage. The 'Poly' (semi-hemi) was a good design, and I'm not sure why they dopped it when they lightened the blocks in the mid-1960s. In any case, the Chrysler wedge engines ran great, and were fuel efficient.
The Chrysler Hemi was a considerably larger block engine than the Dodge and was often or usually paired behind a horrible 2 speed automatic that robbed it of whatever intrinsic efficiency when driven with a light foot. Not certain but I think a few Chrysler 300s had manual transmissions and that at some time the 300 changed to a 3 speed automatic but I think the 300s had short final gearing. @@KDoyle4
Would be interesting to compare the fuel efficiency of the later/last (1957?) Chrysler New Yorkers with the milder Hemi and the 3 speed automatic against the Cadillacs of the same year with their large V8s but I think that year Cadillac still had a 4 speed HydraMatic which might have had an efficiency advantage over the 3 speed Torqueflyte Chrysler transmission. @@KDoyle4
@@davidpowell3347 I'm aware that Chrysler division, Dodge, and DeSoto, each had their own 'hemi' V8. Even with the 2-speed PowerFlite transmission, they outperformed the competition.
This is a dealer information presentation. It is additionally a confidential dealer information presentation. The idea is to help the dealer sell the automobile and, because the information presentation is confidential, only special dealers will have access to the information presentation. The automobile the special dealer will be selling is the Plymouth automobile. The more Plymouth automobiles the special dealer sells the more money the special dealer and the motor company will make. The confidential special dealer information presentation leaves out the piss poor bodies put out by the Plymouth motor company. Lol my Dad had to get rid of his ‘55 Plymouth automobile when it was just three or four years old because it was starting to rust out.
all cars rusted out in 3-4 years in the snow belt area... Chrysler would start dipping bodies at least in 1960... it would help but they got a very bad rust reputation from 55-59
the foreign cars made the USA compete eventually in the 80s... the mid late 70s the big 3 sold us crap and just expected us to buy a new one very 3-4 years after they wouldn't run anymore..
If Plymouth had the Polyspherical Dodge V8,it probably has bragging rights over the Ford with the Y block,at least before the 292 improved Ford engine appeared. On the other hand, Ford's 3 speed automatic was probably better than Plymouth's 2 speed.
Usually referred to as a flathead, but yes it continued up to 1959. All the independents too. The famous Slant Six that came out in 1960 was based on the old flathead six. One reason for the slant was because of that it was a long stroke engine and the slant makes it lower.
I don't think any car makers really worried about rust issues in the 50s :) Chrysler would start dipping in 1960 with their unibodies... unfortunately they got a bad rust reputation already. It would stick with them for decades... I think it's finally gone?
Much later Audi started galvanizing their bodies, then it spread to the rest of German cars, then to US cars and finally Japanese. The early Japanese cars were more carefully assembled and generally more reliable than the rest but they rusted out the fastest because of dragging their feet on galvanizing. Road salt eventually gets to modern cars, but way later. But stuff like brakes and other exposed parts get ruined quickly. Road salt is horrible.
I came from a family of Plymouth owners and had them myself. The 1955 was a very attractive car, first for Virgil Exner.’s Forward Look. However Ford and Chevy that year were also very attractive and quite good. This sales training film strip really shows this as the narrative has to mostly resort to silly salesman talking points that in reality don’t matter a hill of beans.
Was Chrysler Corp. the first automaker to introduce the easy change spin on "full flow" oil filters? Was it first on the new "B" engine which appeared in 1958 if I am correct?
In 2010 the Ford Falcon F6 Typhoon had 4.0L DOHC 24V Inline Six-Cylinder engine made 362 hp at 5250 rpm and 406 lbf⋅ft at 2000-4250 rpm of torque. It was only offered with a Tremec T-56 6-speed manual gearbox. The last time Plymouth had that kind of power was the 1970 Superbird and that was with a 440 V8 at 375 hp next to Fords Falcon GTHO3 351 V8 had 380 hp the same year. OK to be fair the Plyouth was US made and the Falcon were Australian made and Australia is the only place in the world that thinks like the USA when it comes to a good V8.
@@autochronicles8667 Ford Australia closed but none of the research and development wanted to move to the US, so fords engine research and development is now in Australia and not the USA. The engine in the F6 Typhoon is what you get if you start with the 1960 Falcon engine and play with it for 50 years.
Great filmstrip! But--if I were looking at the low-priced three in 1955 (the year I was born) I'd have gone with the Chevy. Why? Both Ford and Chrysler dragged their feet and stayed with the obsolete 6-volt electrical system, and yes, I had a fifties Lincoln with 6-volt. But it might be a different story in '56 when all three offered a 12-volt system.
I would say the 55 Chevy was the winner of the group for sure... Plymouths are rare. Although in 56 I liked the 56 Fury better like the one guy mentioned... the 56 Chevy reminded me of the 55 Ford actually.
@@barbarahunter5463 If I'm Not Mistaken, That Same 265 Block Kept Being Punched Out To Become A 350, With Bigger Cams, Pistons And Heads. So Calling A 265 A Loser Might Only Be Because Of The Lower Horsepower Offered At The Time...
Wish i was driving age in 55, but was not born till 61! I would like to drive both cars and see what they were like when they were brand new. See if the Plymouth could do 90 without the wheels flying off. FORD (First On Race Day) same thing see if it could go 90 with out things flying off it! Then SLAM on the brakes and see how they stop! Tell the salesmen, better put a seat belt on incase i scrap this thing!!!!!
and they down paly fords 6 having 3 hp more...yet skip over the fact that the ford 6 is modern..not old technology like that flathead plymouth used up till 59
@390merc 66 The Plymouth Flathead Six Was A Very Durable, Economical And Low Maintainance Engine Design That Lasted For Over 30-Years, With 4-Main Bearings And Continual Upgrades For More Power To Push Around Those HEAVY All Steel Cars. And Can Still Be Upgraded Further With Aftermarket Parts. However The OHV Designs We're Producing More Horsepower In A Stock Form For Budget Minded Consumers, Which Caused It To Be Replaced With The OHV Slant Six Engine. What Most Young Folks Keep Forgetting, Is That You Can Have A 500 Horsepower Engine In Your Car, But The Speed Limits Have Remained THE SAME For The Last 60-Years...
The Plymouth Powerflite had a four (instead of three) element torque converter that multiplied more than the others so it wasn't bad for a two speed. Also simple and very reliable. But a three speed is better with a passing gear (second) that goes up to a higher mph. The sales pitch on the transmissions was slick talking nonsense. But hey the lever was cool. It lasted one year to be replaced with pushbuttons on the left.
"When Bob and I first saw the 1955 Plymouth, we knew we had the car of the year. A new model that would attract a lot of customers. But it wasn't until we saw the new Ford that we realized what a great sales spot we're in...." Hmm. Funny how he fails to mention the '55 Chevy.... WHOOPS!
I have a Chevy video but not the 55... They only made "single" brand compare videos typically... to compare 1 vs 1... I am looking for the 55 Chevy vs Plymouth.
If this were a Ford presentation, there would be just as many or more advantages to the Ford, I has a 55 Ford convertible, red and white for $25.00 Were there more 55 Plymouths sold than 55 Fords? Of course not.
Not sure higher sales numbers mean a car is good quality or not... And I think the 55 Ford won over the 55 Plymouth... They were detailing the advantages they had. I have a 55 Ford vs BOP+Dodge rebuttle video.
one more thing...plymouth brags about thier drive shaft mounted parking brake,,,,but fails to tell you the wheel drum set up on the ford is much safer ,,,how?..easy ..park both cars on a slight hill..apply parking brake to both ..then take a floor jack and lift one rear wheel off the ground..in the plymouth ..the car will start to move cuzz the wheels are not locked..the drive shaft is ....on the ford..both rear wheels are locked and will still have at least one wheel holding you back...unlike the plymouth
@@TheOzthewiz Exhaust 'ODOR" Is NOT The Issue. It's The Ability Of The Engine To "BREATH" Easier To Obtain More Power. And I Believe Chrysler Had The First HEMISPHERICAL HEADED Engine Available In 1951.
@@merc-ni7hy The Drum Emergency Brake Brake At The Back Of The Transmission Worked FINE For Chrysler Cars Since The 1930's. Because Cars Are Parked With ALL WHEELS On The Ground. WHY Would ANYBODY Park A Car With A Back Wheel Elevated, Unless They Were Changing A Flat Tire? Slack Long Brake Cables Occur As The Cables Stretch And Back Brake Shoes Wear Down, HOPING They Will Self Adjust. Meaning Less Holding Power. And If One Cable Rusts Away And Breaks, That Means Means The Emergency Brakes Are Lost Completely...
oh boy where do i start??...funny how plymouth brags of more hp [ 5 hp ] over the ford v8..and they also boast about plymouth being wider and longer then the ford..so i would think the whopping 5 hp advantage was eatin up by the fatter and longer plymouth
yeah... but only the drag race winner showed the results :) there is a video out there from GM showing the 56 Chevy won the drags that year with v8s... BUT GM was notorious for pitting higher end models to competitors lower end models. When Chrysler drag raced and showed it, they were fair. Like v8 with a 4 barrell... or v8 with a 2 barrell.. GM would pit a 2 barrell v8 chrysler or ford vs a 4 barrell GM v8...
55 was a damn good year for autos :) 56 would be even better... 57 was total shake up for Ford, Chrysler... :) they totally redid their vehicles... Chevy kinda plodded along... until 58
@@autochronicles8667 1957 Seemed To Be The Start Of The Bigger, Wider, Heavier Cars, Since The Price Of Gasoline Was So CHEAP At Only About .23¢ Per Gallon. And Americans Had The BOOMER Generation Growing Up, With Bigger Kids Needing More Room In The Car For Their Families. Bigger Cars Need More Horsepower To Drag Around The Extra Weight. And That HUGE BOX Look Remained Until The Oil Crisis Of 1973.
They were talking about the trunk lid's suspension, not the whole car's - but yeah, it's interesting that they used the word "suspension" in regard to the trunk lid.
Now all the cars look the same, like jellybeans just different colors! It almost seems like driving is not important anymore,it’s all about gadgets and gizmos. I for one am totally disgusted with the “new “cars and trucks…just saying 👎🐴💩🤮
