Interesting 1950 comparison watch between a Roadmaster Vs. a New Yorker

[buick man]

Take a looksie and watch a 1950 sales comparison prepared for the Mopar salesmen's benefit comparing the current 1950 Chrysler New Yorker to the 1950 Buick Roadmaster as of  July 1950.  Some interesting nits and bits of comparisons and details you might not of been aware of.

 

See anything that they missed or fudged on or even should of included but did not ?

 

 

[Pete Phillips]

Very interesting. Thanks for posting. Notice it doesn't say anything about Buick's overhead valves versus the flathead Chrysler engine. Buick put out more horsepower from three fewer cubic inches than the Chrysler New Yorker (hemi didn't arrive until '51). Chrysler has a few nice advantages such as the electric windshield wipers and the doors that open on a level plane, versus the Buick's vacuum wipers and the Buick doors that open up at an angle. This makes the Buick doors harder to open but easier to close and results in many cracked pieces of door glass in Buicks of these years when people let the doors slam closed and the window channel weatherstrip is old and thin.

Pete Phillips, BCA #7338

Leonard, TX

[Joseph P. Indusi]

Interesting film but clearly misses some important points. Chrysler products from this era were very easy to get in and out of due to the high roof lines so a gentleman could wear his hat without it hitting the inside of the roof. The presentation makes a lot of the comfort issue. Clever but not convincing spiel about the Chrysler transmission retaining the clutch as compared to the fully automatic Dynaflow. Now in a year or 2 Chrysler also employed a torque converter instead of a fluid coupling in their Fluid Drive semi-automatic transmission so they would also need to cool the transmission. I notice not one mention of the engines in these cars; clearly the Buick Valve-in-Head was superior to the Chrysler flat head straight eight in terms of power. The Chrysler engine was a good engine but it did not give the HP per cubic inch that a Buick engine could deliver. The Buick torque tube drive was used on some great luxury classic cars and it was reliable, especially since the universal joint ran in oil. Perhaps Buick kept it too long but the Buick ride with 4 coil springs was hard to beat.

Perhaps some others will reply here as I am sure I missed some important points.

Joe, BCA 33493

[old-tank]

Great if you want a car that looks like and functions like a taxi.  My father was a loyal Chrysler owner (until he owned a 55 Buick).  And the 'unique' features like the brakes are a "beach" to work on and are inferior to the Bendix system on Buicks and others.

[Paul Falabella]

Couple years later was a different ballgame. In the early 70's my daily driver was a 54 New Yorker Newport. The 331 hemi went pretty good for a car of it's time. Easily exceeded a century and had good road manners. Unfortunately a drunk blew a stop sign and that was that. Pretty car, Forest green over Mint green. Two tone green interior. Miss that one. 

[NTX5467]

Buick is obviously the style leader of that time, in that price class.  Sometimes, "style" can be relative and can affect the "liveability" of the vehicle.  The Chrysler's more "upstanding" (as its customers might also be) style allows the owners to not have to "de-dress" just to drive their Chryslers, as the Buick would for the same fashions.  A more conservative  and solid style for people of similar orientations.

 

The Buick is a more "interesting" vehicle due to its style and some of its mechanicals.  And, in some models and color combinations, much more flamboyant in orientation . . . which did attract some interesting owners, then and now.

 

THAT's what's wrong with so many modern vehicles, no capabilities of being flamboyant in factory configurations!  "Flamboyant" in the same orientation that 1950s and earlier 1960s cars could be.  And that could also relate to that old quality "pizzazz", too.

 

NTX5467

[buick man]

He is our take on this one.  My dad's 2 brothers always drove Dodges as far back as I can remember growing up.  Dad on the other hand always drove R.M. Buicks as far back as I can remember.  Now in the later 50's and on up to the mid 60's or so, my uncles cars when riding in them gave me the impression of a combination of a jerky thump shift pattern with their transmission.  The ride was a stiff and rigid one what with the torsion bar suspensions. Inside the interior was hard and plastic.  The engines seem to always have some lifter noise that would transfer into the cabin.  All of these issues were absent in my dad's big cushioned floating Buicks.  I bought a 1950 Dodge Wayfarer for $ 35 dollars off the back lot of a local used car dealer.  One of the mains was slightly knocking but the interior was real good and the exterior not bad at all.  It had that faux wood grain dash.  It had a wool interior and had of course the flat head 235 6 cylinder and a fluid drive transmission.  When I dropped the transmission for a repair I was surprised to find a simple torque converter in front of the input shaft of the transmission and that was basically it. The owner's manual was still in the glove compartment and explained how to use the fluid drive transmission.  When at a stop light, you only needed to put the car in gear and slowly let the clutch out while your other foot was on the brake.  The car would not stall and you could then pull away until the gear you had put it in had revved and peaked for a gear change, then you would have to use the clutch.  The overall ride was not bad at all.  Now about the same time a next door neighbor across the street gave me his 1949 Buick Super Sedanette if I could get it started and out of his driveway.  He had been driving it for a couple of previous years to work and it had sat for about a year next to his house.  The 49 Buick was a completely different animal compared to the 50 Dodge.  First the doors open and shut like bank vaults.  Inside the seats were overstuff and the interior more acoustically quiet compared to the Dodge. 

 

When driving the Buick, it just seemed to quietly go faster and faster on the highway and had a sweet cruising spot at around 70.  The dodge had it's sweet spot around 50 but the engine noise and road noise was more pronounced.  A few years later I would have a 59 Plymouth then a 64 Plymouth both with torsion bar suspensions.  They drove and rode as describe above just like my uncles dodges.

 

So in comparison, the 49 Buick offered a more substantial feel from first just opening and shutting the doors, to sitting anywhere in the car to just plain riding in it and even just driving it.  More road vibration feel was sensed in the Wayfarer compared to the Buick. Back then a "front room couch" feel was what I would think, a lot of folks found desirable as ford and chevy nor any of the orphan companies could not offerer anything near that.  Chrysler came closer to that in that era and no doubt ran the long wheel base to help absorb road noise and feel. 

 

It took more effort to shut the doors on my Dodge Wayfarer as they seemed lighter and less substantial.  The Buick doors appeared to almost just shut by themselves with little or no effort on your part.  Granted, the Dynaflow was a slow starter compared to the Wayfarer fluid drive, but once on the road the Dynaflow offered a substantially quieter riding experience.

 

The 50 New Yorker still has a split windshield but I have to complement them on their shock absorber system which the overall industry would eventually adopt.  In my opinion, the padded dash was a rip off from the Tucker and as Chrysler was no doubt glad to see the Tucker gone as a competitor.  The electric windshield washer system is a plus, but in those days, when the vacuum systems were new and not old and dryed out, would of offered an infinite and variable wiper speed control while cruising something not available with the on-off type electric wiper system on the NYorker.

Edited August 2, 2015 by buick man (see edit history)

[NTX5467]

As my grandmother might have noted, the Dodge was "serviceable" (meaning durable) whereas the Buick would be "high fashion".  Might be more "fair" to compare the Dodge to a Chevrolet of the same vintage, but I know the Chevy is not in this comparison mix . . . unlike in more current times.

 

In those earlier times, or even up until about the mid-1980s or so, when you bought a higher-level vehicle, you expected it to operate better than a lower-level vehicle.  Many did that as a matter of course.  You expected things to be done to a higher level of execution in design and engineering, too, which usually also happened.  Plus more features and options.

 

AND . . . each car company's products had their own (generally) unique feel and manner in which they did things.  GMs were usually smoother and quieter than Chrysler products, but there's also a reason most law enforcement operatives tended to prefer Fords and Chrysler products over GMs, other than just a low bid price . . . which I've observed to be a somewhat regional situation, too, depending upon how much high-speed "action" they were prepared to handle.  Just what I started noticing in the later 1950s.  Also, a reason that Plymouths were generally desired over other brands for taxi work, too.  Or even police work when the Ford had their flathead V-8s and all Plymouth had were flathead sixes.  Be that as it may . . .  IF a taxi appeared that was a Buick, they probably would have gone out of business as it would have been perceived to cost too much to use them, I suspect.  Yep, there's a reason those Chrysler bodies had such generous door sizes, shoulder room, and seat heights ("chair high" seating had been one of their selling points since the AirFlow days).

 

Buick and Chrysler played to the same general market demographics back then, but most of the Chrysler owners I knew in the 1960s would not consider a Buick and vice versa.  EACH had their own reasons, which I understand and respect.  Not everybody liked that "floating on air" feel rather than knowing what road surface you were driving on (in a straight line).  Be that as it may.

 

EACH had their own strong points, just depends upon which attributes the owner prioritized.

 

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[trp3141592]

Hi,

 

My dad bought Plymouths his whole adult life and considered them to be well-built and very well designed.  That is, until he bought a 52 Plymouth sedan.  I vaguely remember that car, but I vividly recall his disappointment in it.  Everything about it was junk, poorly made, and under designed.  He got rid of that turkey and never bought another WPC product.

 

He replaced it with a used 53 Buick Special with an automatic transmission.  I remember playing with the spin-around antenna.  The car  was built like a battleship, and it had the gas mileage to prove it.  My mother hated it--no power steering then.  Nevertheless, it performed well, and he kept it into the 60's when he bought a used Volvo PV544 to drive to work daily.  That too was a great car.

 

Best car he ever owned?  Probably the 41 Plymouth.  Worst?  52 Plymouth.  Go figure.

 

-Tom

[60FlatTop]

Over the last 50+ years I have noticed that Chrysler product owners have a family lineage of ownership. Usually it's a Father Son thing with a lot of other inherent traits. Many seen to thrive on the underdog appeal of it. And Chrysler Product owners tend to be the biggest whiners at car shows, as well. In general, of course. Corvette guys are close.

 

Most of the heraldic MoPar owners I have seen move into a GM car are usually astounded at what a great car their, typically, Buick is. They only go back due to genetic serotonin imbalances or other neurological maladies.

 

That 1950 (not 1951) New Yorker carried a 1949 Plymouth body with all linds of extensions in the fenders and bumpers. Those are long front fenders to fit the wheelbase.

 

That's a Point Of Sale training video. We use the acronym POS today to describe that; interesting. The first car I ever owned was a '49 Plymouth and I was 12 years old. I was in 7th grade and my Mother was fretting over dress clothes and a suitcase for me to take on the school's Albany, Capitol of New York trip. I told her instead of spending $50 and clothes that didn't fit my lifestyle her and Dad could help me invest in the $25 Plymouth Uncle Frank had for sale. I got the car and had a good week with the hoodlums who didn't take the educational trip. That damned Plymouth had a two piece hood, split right above the spark plugs. It would never start with the submerged plugs after a rain

 

56 years later it is interesting to have been fingered as a hoodlum for staying home from the Albany trip and hanging out in a junkyard. Albany is where they haul 'em out in handcuffs now. Well, "Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Always Shady in Albany."

Bernie, excuse me if I missed offending anyone.

Bernie

Edited August 2, 2015 by 60FlatTop (see edit history)

[NTX5467]

I don't believe that Plymouth was the only brand that used a two-piece hood in the '50s.  Anything with a chrome strip down the middle (usually streaming rearward from a proud hood ornament) probably had such a hood construction.  Some, obviously, had chrome which sealed the seam better than others?  Did you miss the fact that it had an "electric assist" automatic choke?  LOL

 

I used to notice the "father-son" situation with vehicle brands, but that seemed to greatly diminish in the 1980s.  It's still around, but to a lesser extent now.

 

Somewhere in these forums, there's a quote from a grandfather to a grandkid just learning to drive.  "Stay away from people who drive Chrysler Products.  They've already been shown to make poor decisions."  Which is supposed to mean they'd make similar decisions on the roadway.  Only thing now is that many might not know just what a "Chrysler product" is, as many younger citizens don't seem to be that interested in who builds what anymore, by observation, but that situation seems to be changing since the "That thing got a Hemi in it?" days.

 

Chrysler "banked" on their interior spaciousness and the fact you "sat upright" in them with plenty of shoulder room.  Seems like the seats even had armrests on their ends, similar to church pews?   But when the '55s came out, it was a whole different story as the body designs were suddenly in-tune with the mechanical upgrades of years earlier.  Then the '57s it and it was several different stories!

 

NTX5467

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

  I believe Plymouth did not have a two piece hood in 1949.

 

  Ben

[ScarredKnightfan]

Oh my goodness ... thank you for posting this, David ... AWESOME!  LOVE seeing vintage films like this.  Had to chuckle:  "Mr. & Mrs. Customer"  LOL!

 

BTW, if I missed this somewhere along the way, I apologize ... but, who is doing the voice over?  It almost sounds like the guy who famously described the Hindenburg Disaster.....

 

 

Cort www.oldcarsstronghearts.com

1979 & 1989 Caprice Classics | pigValve, paceMaker, cowValve

"Didn't I tell you?" __ Colbie Caillat __ 'Realize'

[60FlatTop]

I could enjoy a car like that. I like straight eights, anyway.

 

The two piece hood was on the '49 Plymouths; and engineered so the seam ran right above the row of spark plugs. I mopped the water out of those depressions many times. Maybe Chrysler named the indentations depressions and the medical community applied the sadness after people told of their cars not starting.

 

Some of you must remember those aftermarket cups held in place by the spark plug with a rubber sealed top. Yep, MoPar stuff.

 

I have about 100 Chevy sales training recordings from 78 rpm records here and they are quite entertaining in their own right. I even had an Olds trainer that mentions Buicks 425 Wildcat engine. The announcer told salesmen to ask customers if it ran on cat food.

 

It's fun. In the Chrysler video I think the best part is the wife's facial expressions. Priceless!

 

Bernie