PDA

View Full Version : The truth about our cars.



Barry Wolk
10-19-2021, 08:24 AM
People that actually work on their Mark IIs will likely agree. There is little difference in working on a Cadillac, Chevy or Chrysler product of the period. As I'm sandblasting stamped parts for the '58 BelAir suspension I'm working on I feel like it's Deja Vu, all over again. Since a Mark II weighs 5000# and the BelAir weighs 3000# I would expect a gauge difference in the sheet metal, but there doesn't seem to be much. By far, the Mark II chassis is superior to the X-frame, and with it comes a weight penalty. That weight penalty is actually a safety penalty, as the frame is much more significant and rigid on the Mark II. The original 348 engine was just about as powerful as the Lincoln 368. It has 11" drum brakes while the Mark II has 12". Proportional to weight, the Chevy brakes are more efficient. Gas mileage was about the same. Steering components are near identical, maybe even proportionally stronger.

The bodies are nearly identical FORD/GM. Engineering is engineering and there was plenty of maker DNA swapping in the design/build departments. I've learned recently that Mark IIs uses some heat resistant steel in the floor pan, which likely added to the body rigidity, not a great plus. The bodies were made for the car by a local concern in Owasso, Michigan. From Elmer's reports the initial batch, (mostly IUs), used way too much lead, which had to be shaved off at the factory. Back window glass wasn't fitting and some had big gaps between the trim and finished bodied, calling for way too much reworking and repainting. There are stories of major panel interchangeability problems with body parts. They were built as sets and many that needed replacement panels had to alter what the factory was sending.

The Mark II and lots of other Fords have common parts, most notably Thunderbird and Lincoln hard parts and general Ford standard-issue electrical parts. If someone took a photo of the inside of a Mark II door you wouldn't know which Ford product you were looking at. All the cars used the same manufacturer's window regulators. They were just bracketed for individual cars. While the Mark II had its own parts book and unique numbering system, they give you a 11-page single lined list of part numbers that cross to standard Ford part numbers. Ford has generic part numbers with suffixes that tell what car that part is labeled for, but other cars use the same part.

Continental was a boutique manufacturer that ran on an early "just in time" format. There was little room to store, or make anything. Everything they did was an assembly job. There was no cutting, stamping, welding, plating of metal parts, but I'll acknowledge that paint was applied and leather cut to fit on other's outside work. The upholstery worker had the most skills. They had to do the two things on-site that gave the cars some degree of individuality. Is that what sets the Mark II above others? Paint and sewing? How many of you have worked a production job? The cars were designed by actual trained designers, that happened to be Ford employees. When the design was approved it went to Ford engineers to be made possible to build. That was Gordon Buehrig's job as Chief Engineer. He actually left before they came to market. They were all Ford engineers that got their approvals from Ford management. Most production cars are built for production expedience, not service, which is so obvious on our cars. However, they are all made to be assembled by the lowest common denominator, the assembly line worker. Having been one, near brain death would have been harder as I had to do he same damn thing until I got good at it, then I did just enough to not get yelled at, and not so good that I got slugged by other employees. Sound familiar? The workers were our fathers uncles and brothers that were hired as a body, nothing more. Things are different today. You need a college degree now to program and operate machinery that is much more sophisticated than back then.

Hand made? There were no robots and sheetmetal wasn't hand-hammered over wood bucks. That's hand made. Using 5 successive dies to form a part from flat stock is stamping, not hand making. Not even made by Ford. They were directed, as a Division, to buy from other Divisions before sourcing a part outside Ford, like the hood ornament, made by a gun sight manufacturer, because Ford's foundries were incapable of fine work.

The men that worked in the plant (women were a distraction and were not even allowed to sew or even be in the plant) were not always the best workers. They were all union workers that vied for their cushy, slow-moving, jobs at Continental by using their seniority to get their positions. Those conditions did not make for the best work force, just the oldest. Problems the plant couldn't fix were simply shipped to the dealer to solve. Assemblers are very different from mechanics. The worst mechanic is a better assembler than they were. You really didn't need much skill, like the skilled trades that built and maintained machinery. As union members they couldn't fire the workers, they had to give them "one more chance", forever.

So, what did the original purchasers get for their money? They got fine finishes. Good leather, good chrome, good paint. That seems to be what set it apart from the market, that and and an extremely heavy dose of Marketing 101, that we've found, didn't really tell the truth about the cars. While the myths, for the most part came from the press, Ford fed the buyers a line that tried to hook the rich buyer by putting fancy clothes on a handmaiden.

Does any of this lessen my love of the marque? Not at all. But, now that I know the truth it explains why these were not a huge success in the marketplace and are not a huge success as far as current values are concerned. What hurts the values more than anything is availability. Too many survived. People knew they were an icon and stashed them, just a few years old. We, as owners, have an obligation to set the record straight. That's all I'm doing.

https://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/gg18/barry2952/1%20Mark%20sequential%20photos/107210-81.JPG%205155_zpsuvn5xziy.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds

Milsteads Garage
10-19-2021, 10:11 AM
I have a few of my experiences to add especially to the comparison of parts between GM and Mopar. Here are the things that people don’t seem to realize but I do since I’ve owned/been under/worshipped cars from the 1950s. The MarkII was a car that significantly changed the way all American cars were built and in 1957 cars got the “lower,wider,longer” look. The Continental in 1955 did it first. Just look at the stodginess of every other car built in 55 or 56. They are all very upright, high and narrow and that’s because Mopar and GM ripped off the MarkII frame design, tweaked the design so there wouldn’t be any patent issues, and ran with it. Concerning the way bodies were built, I did notice that the MarkII has a hell of a lot of lead in it and all the fitment issues were caused by the leading itself because the panels warped and distorted during the heat it took to get the lead on the body. It took a lot of skill that assembly worker had to lead that body. It’s a skill I envy and after many years of trying still cannot get right even though I’ve mastered every type of modern welding skill. Concerning how a MarkII is built versus a Cadillac or an Imperial is a night and day difference especially Cadillac. Cadillac, really, was kind of pathetic going up against Continental as their “flagship” Eldorado because all an eldorado was is a Cadillac with a different tail section. I can really sit and bag on how terribly a 1950s Cadillac is built but the one thing the Imperial and Continental has that a Cadillac doesn’t is an engine built for a truck. As we know, a derivative of a Lincoln engine can often be found in Fords larger line of F800-F900 trucks as where the hemi and the 413 wedge were found in Dodge medium/heavy duty truck lines. Chevrolet never used a Cadillac engine in their big trucks. You want to know what they used? A Chevrolet 348 based engine they called a “tall deck” or they used that horrid, rod throwing GM V-6 (or if you wanted a bigger engine GMC offered a V12 which was 2 rod chucking v6 engines bolted together).

Barry Wolk
10-19-2021, 10:48 AM
I never said they were the same. I said working on them was the same tools and same basic knowledge. I said the engineering is the same. If not, please point out the technical differences. I never said the finish quality was the same. Please don't stretch my words.

Edit, it's not my words, they are right out of Elmer Rohn's Progress reports.

Roger Zimmermann
10-20-2021, 03:37 AM
The MarkII was a car that significantly changed the way all American cars were built and in 1957 cars got the “lower,wider,longer” look. The Continental in 1955 did it first. Just look at the stodginess of every other car built in 55 or 56. They are all very upright, high and narrow...
Did you ever see a 1953 Studebaker Starlight/Starliner?

Barry Wolk
10-20-2021, 06:19 AM
Roger, I'm glad you chimed in. You are the perfect person to comment on this post. With your background with GM and your attention to detail and knowledge of materials can you make a list of substantive engineering or material differences between the Cadillacs you've restored and the Mark IIs you've climbed inside and out of gathering information on building your Mark II model?

Are the suspension parts not nearly identical in form and function? How about steering components? How about the brakes? Any differences of substance? Was the process of body building any different? How about paint? Was there any real differences in electrical components, or drive line components? Cooling system innovations? Didn't they use similar packaged a/c components? Weren't the same vacuum components used on GM cars? How about the inner workings of the doors, anything new and different from any Ford? Door locks and latches? Glass? Chrome? Plastics? Any real differences? How about assembly? Anything advanced about the Mark II over Cadillac?

The singular improvement I can point to is the perimeter frame vs. the straight rail frame GM used. Any other significant innovations that sets the Mark II apart from the pack? Any?

Milsteads Garage
10-20-2021, 10:09 AM
Nah, I’ll chime back in. So it seems that now we are talking about how a part actually functions. Well, you are right Barry, an engine operates like an engine, a transmission operates like a transmission and so on and so forth. No real differences in a way parts operate but I sure don’t like some of the way Cadillac built their parts. So I’m going to start off and tell you a few things I don’t like comparing a 1956 Cadillac to a 1956 Continental. First, let’s talk about the brakes on a Cadillac. So did you know in 1956 Cadillac placed the master cylinder near the front bumper? And then connected it to the brake pedal using a 4 foot push rod? Did you know they used roller ball bearings in the axles instead of the more efficient and common taper ball bearings? Those sure were fun to find on my 58 to the point that a set of wheel bearings were going to be $400 so I had to do some digging and take the brake drums off a 60. Then there is the engine and trans. While everybody up until now was okay with PRNDL, Cadillac decided to be awesome and put reverse to the bottom. Made for a real interesting ride up a mountain pass when my step dad went for low and threw it in reverse instead, never mind the fact of Imperials push button drive and was a challenge just put the letters back in the dashboard in the event you innocently took the bezel off. I suppose never mind the poor oiling system that was pretty much installed as an afterthought using a canister and a couple pieces of 3/16 brake tubing. Matter of fact the hydra matic has a pretty lousy cooling system tapping into the heater hoses. Not to mention the hardware they put the car together with. Fine thread bolts? Yeah, sure. Fine thread bolts have more surface grip area versus a coarse thread bolt but do you really need that? What about after a few rain storms and that bolt begins to corrode not to mention trying to disassemble it 66 years later. Yeah, I solidly believe the Continental is a far superior car. I mean if you want me to keep going I can find a few things more especially about the imperial and how weirdly it’s built too. Great car, just built weird.

Mark Norris
10-20-2021, 12:09 PM
I can't comment about other American cars (other than when I lived in the States I did love my 87 Fleetwood Brougham, it was in the mid 90s and everyone got out of the way) but what I can say from a European perspective is the Mkii is a lovely car to work on. All the fasteners come apart and do up with no trouble. Everything is big, solid and still works! Most importantly when you go to work on a system you don't end up with a pile of rust and scrap ..OK mine is ex. SoCal so maybe they aren't all like that. I love the fact that its really pretty simple and built like a tank then drives like a small continent but can pick up her skirts and really pull away if you want. Most people in Europe are not into classic American cars but I get a hell of a lot of thumbs-up and comments (often from lady drivers) saying what a beautiful car it is ..and note vast majority of people over here are quite reserved, without "sincerity issues", so it really means something if they speak out to a total stranger.

lld
10-20-2021, 06:11 PM
I can't really compare a Mark II to the corresponding Cadillac model. The only American car I ever fully restored was a fuel injected (mechanical) 1960 Corvette roadster; I have done a lot of work on other American cars but not detailed, restoration work. I have done several restorations of British cars, in particular Rolls Royce and Bentley. The corresponding series of RR and Bentley cars use fine threads for virtually every fastener in the car. The fine threads have a higher tensile strength (for a given material and diameter), allow finer adjustments, and are less prone to loosening due to vibration. Of course, virtually every fastener was also cadmium plated.

Perhaps it's because I have not restored a large American car, I find the size and weight of the body parts of the Mark II to be large, heavy and impressive. Some pieces might have been better suited to the use of aluminum, such as the hood, the doors and the trunk but I can't go out to my garage without stopping to look at this massive, beautiful car.


Larry

Roger Zimmermann
10-21-2021, 02:45 AM
Roger, I'm glad you chimed in. You are the perfect person to comment on this post. With your background with GM and your attention to detail and knowledge of materials can you make a list of substantive engineering or material differences between the Cadillacs you've restored and the Mark IIs you've climbed inside and out of gathering information on building your Mark II model?

Are the suspension parts not nearly identical in form and function? How about steering components? How about the brakes? Any differences of substance? Was the process of body building any different? How about paint? Was there any real differences in electrical components, or drive line components? Cooling system innovations? Didn't they use similar packaged a/c components? Weren't the same vacuum components used on GM cars? How about the inner workings of the doors, anything new and different from any Ford? Door locks and latches? Glass? Chrome? Plastics? Any real differences? How about assembly? Anything advanced about the Mark II over Cadillac?

The singular improvement I can point to is the perimeter frame vs. the straight rail frame GM used. Any other significant innovations that sets the Mark II apart from the pack? Any?
Well, I may not be the perfect guy to pin point the differences because I did not work really on a Mark II. However, while I was at Theo's place, my focus was all about shapes and dimensions to be replicated; however, I did some observations: the electrical system from the Ford products is for me a nightmare. The one for the Mark II is over complicated with relays for the window lifts. Sure, it saves the switches from heavy current, but the switches from my Cadillacs are still working, without relay.
1956 Cadillac had an electric antenna; Continental cars still had a vacuum one. One large advance in suspension at Lincoln/Continental: they have a front suspension with ball joints; Cadillac still had king pins till 1956. My Brougham has ball joints and about the same steering box than a 1956 Cad, but the behavior on the road is quite different. About steering: Saginaw was the supplier for the Continental steering box; very similar to the ones used on GM products, which is not a surprise as Saginaw was a GM division.
Brakes: really similar conception. Adequate for that time. Yes, on the '56 Cad, the master cylinder/booster was installed on the frame near the radiator. I don't see a problem to actuate the system with a short or a long rod. By the way, for 1957 the brakes on Cadillac models went back to the Hydrovac used already for 1954 and 55. 1958 saw the return of the Treadle-Vac system, this time located in a vertical position. Drums and other hardware? Similar to both groups (I have absolutely no experience in Mopar products).
About the frames: the one from the Mark II was very unusual and prone to rust because the steel was rather thin. The frames for Cadillac models till 1956 were just an evolution from the thirties. Better? worse? I cannot say. But they don't rust so easily. (My '56 Biarritz was a rust nightmare, but the frame was sound!)
As you know, I have a '57 Brougham which was the response from GM to the Continental. Compared to all other cars from that time, the Brougham were technically very advanced, but not always reliable like the air suspension when the Continental was a very nice conventional vehicle. Details and body wise, the Mark II was better constructed than the Brougham with smaller gaps between sheet metal panels. As I never saw new Mark II nor Broughams, I cannot say if the body panels were more straight or the paint better on this or that model.
A last detail about the door locks: the locks used on the Continental are not well engineered: the rotary star has only one "bearing". With some play into that bearing, the door will jam. It seems that it's a common issue. It was solved on Lincoln cars for 1957 when the star was guided at the outside. However, the lock used by GM till 1955/56 was not the best in my opinion with that lever going up and down. The 1956 Sedan de Ville had locks similar to the '57 Lincoln models.
I hope that my post is more or less understandable...

Barry Wolk
10-21-2021, 06:53 AM
Well, I may not be the perfect guy to pin point the differences because I did not work really on a Mark II. However, while I was at Theo's place, my focus was all about shapes and dimensions to be replicated; however, I did some observations: the electrical system from the Ford products is for me wa nightmare. The one for the Mark II is over complicated with relays for the window lifts. Sure, it saves the switches from heavy current, but the switches from my Cadillacs are still working, without relay.
1956 Cadillac had an electric antenna; Continental cars still had a vacuum one. One large advance in suspension at Lincoln/Continental: they have a front suspension with ball joints; Cadillac still had king pins till 1956. My Brougham has ball joints and about the same steering box than a 1956 Cad, but the behavior on the road is quite different. About steering: Saginaw was the supplier for the Continental steering box; very similar to the ones used on GM products, which is not a surprise as Saginaw was a GM division.
Brakes: really similar conception. Adequate for that time. Yes, on the '56 Cad, the master cylinder/booster was installed on the frame near the radiator. I don't see a problem to actuate the system with a short or a long rod. By the way, for 1957 the brakes on Cadillac models went back to the Hydrovac used already for 1954 and 55. 1958 saw the return of the Treadle-Vac system, this time located in a vertical position. Drums and other hardware? Similar to both groups (I have absolutely no experience in Mopar products).
About the frames: the one from the Mark II was very unusual and prone to rust because the steel was rather thin. The frames for Cadillac models till 1956 were just an evolution from the thirties. Better? worse? I cannot say. But they don't rust so easily. (My '56 Biarritz was a rust nightmare, but the frame was sound!)
As you know, I have a '57 Brougham which was the response from GM to the Continental. Compared to all other cars from that time, the Brougham were technically very advanced, but not always reliable like the air suspension when the Continental was a very nice conventional vehicle. Details and body wise, the Mark II was better constructed than the Brougham with smaller gaps between sheet metal panels. As I never saw new Mark II nor Broughams, I cannot say if the body panels were more straight or the paint better on this or that model.
A last detail about the door locks: the locks used on the Continental are not well engineered: the rotary star has only one "bearing". With some play into that bearing, the door will jam. It seems that it's a common issue. It was solved on Lincoln cars for 1957 when the star was guided at the outside. However, the lock used by GM till 1955/56 was not the best in my opinion with that lever going up and down. The 1956 Sedan de Ville had locks similar to the '57 Lincoln models.
I hope that my post is more or less understandable...

Totally understandable. I would summarize your writings by saying that you agree to the similarities and don’t see a lot of difference between what GM was producing and what Ford considered luxury cars. I’ve found frame rust on the Mark II to be directly related to critters finding homes in the boxed frames and urinating in their nests that caused the frames to rot from the inside out and not from the thickness of the metal. In every failed frame I’ve seen there was an abundance of nesting material.

It was helpful to learn that the ‘56 Caddy was a straight axle. Thank you.