Packard Forum Index » General

No offense to anyone, and hope I don't get banned for posting this at a Packard forum
Is anybody, here, familiar with the 54-56 Cadillacs? More specifically, I am seriously thinking about checking out this one:classic.com/veh/1956-cadillac-series-62-5662072328-WLJKdO4/
It is also listed at a more reasonable price on FB, here:facebook.com/marketplace/item/2689527911434670

It is claimed that the car is original interior, paint, and, most importantly, mileage I am mostly looking at any advise about whether or not it really appears to be the case. I am not very familiar with the Cads, so am not sure what the OEM things are really supposed to look like, besides just the general integrity of the body, etc. I have to admit, the available pictures look extremely nice. There is some rust on the rockers and parts of the frame, but it appear to be surface-only. The engine might not be the factory color, but I am not sure.

Thanks!

p.s.: I used to be registered at the applicable Cad forum, in the past, but they do not allow anyone who is not a paid club member to post anymore

It looks to be original to what I can remember and except for the bright blue shocks, nothing glaring aftermarket stands out. It has the optional Autronic eye headlight control but surprisingly no power seat or windows. For a Cadillac that is kind of unusual but there are a few Packards that were also manual windows and seats so I guess there were also Cadillac owners who didn't like fancy doodads -- which doesn't explain the headlight control as reports say that was somewhat hit or miss given the electronics of the day. It was fairly new though. Believe it or not there was one prospective Packard owner who insisted on having one if he was to buy a Packard. Article telling about it said the Packard dealer made the commitment, went to a Cad dealership and was able to buy all the parts and then installed it in the guys new Packard. Wonder how many dealers would do that today.

Can't comment on the actual mileage claim but nothing looks terribly high mileage worn.

One interesting thing Cadillac did was to place the power brake unit up by the radiator and have a long actuating rod going down to the brake pedal. The brake units look fairly similar so I can't say if that is the actual Bendix Treadlevac or the GM licensed Moraine built version of the Treadlevac. Treadlevacs can do it too but apparently not as often because according to some forums, the way seals were placed in Moraine versions they have dubious reputations of too often the brake fluid can be sucked out of the reservoir if one of the seals fails.

I’ve owned both 1954 and 1956 and, in fact, my 1956 which was a coupe (not Series 62 Coupe DeVille) was the same color but with a dark blue roof. My 1954 was a Fleetwood which was very opulent compared to the 1956 so if I were in the market today, I would opt for a 1956 Fleetwood Sixty Special over any other model or year and would find one with factory A/C which was apparently more popular than on Packard. Of the Cadillac styling, they nailed it for 1956 in my opinion.

All that said, it’s quite late so I didn’t look at all the photos in the two links so cannot comment on the specific car.

I used to own a 1952 Cadillac convertible. It was in poor overall condition, but I drove it tens of thousands of miles and had a lot of fun with it, and very little trouble. It had hydraulic power windows, top, and seat, and power steering, and they all worked well. No power brakes, and none needed.

Quote:
Yes, I also noticed some new maintenance items such as shocks and a couple of suspension bushings. So this is clearly a driver, someone must've gone over it. The Series 62 were the cheapest cars, I believe, like a Clipper So this one is pretty basic.


Quote:
At this point, I am just trying to find a well-preserved car without body damage or large repairs, with original paint - which is already quite difficult to do, so I am not picky about the models or accessories I also like the 54-56 Cad look, especially the nose profile. In addition, I like the 4-door models more than the 2-door cars, because of the roof overhang. And this is good because the 4-doors are usually cheaper
If you have a moment, could you please kindly take a look at this particular car to see if you notice any irregularities?

Thus far, the only strange thing I've noticed, is that the car has a new/newer exhaust, front to back. So that means that the old one probably rusted out. This might indicate that the car was either driven more miles than is currently displayed on the odometer or it sat somewhere. In the later case, there should be other signs of rust.
However, besides surface rust at the bottom, the usual rust places like the back of the rear fenders and the tailpipe bumper corners look extremely well Also, I cannot tell whether that thick undercoating is OEM or not...

First, between 1954 and 1956 there were a number of styling changes leaving 1956 as the standout but one change was also an improvement to durability in that was the rear bumper ends in 1954 and 1955 where the exhaust exited at the bottom, they were prone to rust-out but with the exhaust moved to the tops of the bumper for 1956, they did not have the problem. Also, this change gave the style a nice side-pipe look that was quite attractive.

As far as the rest, it’s impossible to judge by the photos but I do see rust issues in the rockers and other areas which will be costly to deal with. I would not buy a car like this without going the distance to actually see it.

Incidentally, in the movie Driving Miss Daisy, her black 1955 Fleetwood kept flip-flopping into a 1956 from scene to scene as they obviously used two different cars.

The exhaust systems on 1950s and 1960s cars were not very durable. Dual systems were especially prone to rust-out on cars that were not driven for longer distances, due to moisture in the exhaust gases condensing and remaining in the mufflers and pipes. Supposedly, leaded fuel contributed to the problem. The exhaust systems would collect water and combustion products, and in short trip service, especially in cool weather, the moisture would not be expelled since the system never got hot enough. The condensate water and combustion residue would cause rapid internal corrosion, especially in the mufflers and tail pipes and resonators. I'd be surprised if any 1950s-60s V-8 cars still have their original exhaust systems. Large cars driven sparingly by elderly city dwellers were especially prone to exhaust system corrosion. Mileage was not a factor. In fact, cars driven regularly for longer distances with open road mileage usually did not have early exhaust system issues. In town, short trip service was the worst.

Quote:

Mine do, and the pipes seem to be OK from being so thick, but the mufflers have rust holes.

A car damaged from road salt miles gets the pipes deteriorating from both sides at the same time, and that's where I really start to see problems. Or cars sunk into the ground, of course.