Jump to content

Cadillac flower truck?


Xander Wildeisen

Recommended Posts

That car started life as a 1941 Cadillac Sixty Special.  If you look at the one "as-found" photo, it does appear to have been a flower car originally.   Probably built by Miller-Meteor or Hess & Eisenhardt.  It was one of those real long wheelbase ones.  Someone shortened it when they "restored" it and added the pickup bed.  Someone put a lot of money and time into it fixing it up.  I doubt they'll come close much of it get it back.        

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, auburnseeker said:

Well the ad leaves a bit to be desired.  Sounds like the engine came from a tank? They leave a lot of info out as to when and what was rebuilt.   For 25G. I think it should atleast run. 

 

The poster may be referring to something like this, taken from Cadillac V-8 engine history:  Google Cadillac V-8

Monobloc[edit]

A 322 cu in (5.28 L) "monobloc" engine was used in 1936's Series 60. It was designed to be the company's next-generation powerplant at reduced cost from the 353 and Cadillac V12. The monobloc's cylinders and crankcase were cast as a single unit,[3] and it used hydraulic valve lifters for durability. This design allowed the creation of the mid-priced Series 60 line.

Bore was 3.375 in (85.7 mm) and stroke was 4.5 in (110 mm). This engine was modified with a 3.5 in (89 mm) bore for the 1936-1948 346 cu in (5.67 L) engine. This was used in the Series 60/60S/61/62/63/65/67 and 70/72/75. It was also used in tanks, e.g. M5 Stuart, in World War II.

 

Of course I don't know the poster's intentions. As the clip states, the 346 engine was used in some tanks WWII.  Whether or not they were completely interchangeable, would take more research. 

 

intimeold

Edited by intimeold (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bobg1951chevy said:

What YEAR did Cadillac begin with auto trannys ?

1941

 

3 hours ago, intimeold said:

As the clip states, the 346 engine was used in some tanks WWII.  Whether or not they were completely interchangeable, would take more research. 

Tank engines had iron pistons. IIRC an adapter is necessary for starter and perhaps more.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 it doesn't have the 4" raised cowl of the quality jobs and it looks like a standard 60S wheelbase. Even the rear roof section. It may have actually been modified by a fire department during the '50's.

 

In my area there have been a few cut down Cadillacs and one Packard fire cars over the years.

 

If I had that car I would toss that pickup box and fabricate a deck lid. Then I would swear it was a long lost Dietrich coupe. They captured the style. I wonder if those are Model 75 coupe quarter panels.

Bernie

Edited by 60FlatTop (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also thinking this was never originally a coachbuilt flower car.
None of the established coachbuilders extended the fenders on '41s/ used the S60S. Nothing else seems to match up with an original pro car, including the roofline, the trim, the side window, the wheelbase, etc. All the pics I've seen of '41s show commercial-length cars with 4 doors.

41 Cadillac Flxible.jpeg

Edited by WQ59B (see edit history)
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a 1958 Cadillac that started life as a Sixty-Special, note the lower rear trim, Fleetwood, Factory air. It was converted into a flower car in the late 1950s or early 1960s it was extended three feet to have an eight-foot bed. It was used as a flower car only as there is no fold-down tailgate.

 

Notice the picture comparing it to an original Sixty-Special. See the difference where the rear side spear is further back? The extension was there.

 

In the mid-90s, it was repainted into a parade car.

As a caveat, I would never disturb and original car into anything like this. I bought it for a parts car because I have four other 1958 Cadillacs. But when it arrived on a transporter, I decided to keep it intact. It has a certain panache in person. Other than the paint and bodywork, it is stock. I did add a custom steering wheel.

20140731_170018 (Large).jpg

9.JPG

11.jpg

1958 Fleetwood-03 (Medium).JPG

Edited by CatBird (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tank engines were identical internally. The blocks were quite different how they were mounted in their respective frames. The tanks had 1 engine for each set of tracks. These tank engines were dipped in cosmoline, they took one hell of a lot of work to get them cleaned up. They dipped canvas in the cosmoline and wrapped the engines in it.

 

I purchased a surplus Cadillac motor when restoring my father's 1941 Cadillac convertible sedan. They were very inexpensive at the time $300 each in 1985. We used all of the surplus motors innards. It was an easy swap over. We used the pistons, rods, crank, timing components, valves and the hydraulic lifters. Our car had minimal miles on the odometer and the bore was not worn . Just a light hone and we were stylin'

 

just sayin'

 

brasscarguy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can remember a couple of the old guys who used to hang around my brother's gas station laughing about someone that they knew who thought he had scored big time when he bought several brand new Hydramatics cheap at some Army surplus auction. As they explained it, the guy didn't realize that the tank Hydramatics didn't have reverse.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Hudsy Wudsy said:

I can remember a couple of the old guys who used to hang around my brother's gas station laughing about someone that they knew who thought he had scored big time when he bought several brand new Hydramatics cheap at some Army surplus auction. As they explained it, the guy didn't realize that the tank Hydramatics didn't have reverse.

How did they back them up???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a charger when I came home from across the pond and got out of the army in Dec 68. Young, dumb, foot loose and didn’t have to worry about Uncle Sam any more  I drove it almost (but not quite) as crazy as that.  I have to say it helped get my head back on the right way. Back then the Charger was a better ride than a Hudson would have been, today it would be a toss up. 

Dave S 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess to speculate on the tank reverse thing a little more, "reverse" in a Hydramatic, like any automatic transmission,  is a go-slow business. I could see where having the full range of speeds that a Hydramatic offered in both directions might be important in some "get out of there in a hurry" situations. But the truth of the matter is I'm going beyond speculation on this point. I will say that just being able to turn in place might have been enough, but I'm inclined to doubt it. I would think that some kind of reverse would be best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...