Advice on purchasing a completely original (paint and interior) '54 series 62

[Julien Abrahams]

Dear all,

Last week I visited a small local car show where somebody offered a '54 series 62 sedan for sale. The car appears to be completely original body wise and interior wise. The interior is in very good condition. The body is rock solid, no rust (except for a bit of rust on the rear bumper ends where the exhaust exits the bumper, but I know that this is a design "flaw" and that is where they all rust). Asking price is $19,5k.
This would be my first 50's Cadillac (I own a '67 for twelve years now).
Do you guys have any tips, things to look out for, driving wise major differences between a '54 and a '67?
Any tips and info is very much appreciated.
Thanks in advance,

Julien, The Netherlands.

[64\/54Cadillacking]

Dear all,

Last week I visited a small local car show where somebody offered a '54 series 62 sedan for sale. The car appears to be completely original body wise and interior wise. The interior is in very good condition. The body is rock solid, no rust (except for a bit of rust on the rear bumper ends where the exhaust exits the bumper, but I know that this is a design "flaw" and that is where they all rust). Asking price is $19,5k.
This would be my first 50's Cadillac (I own a '67 for twelve years now).
Do you guys have any tips, things to look out for, driving wise major differences between a '54 and a '67?
Any tips and info is very much appreciated.
Thanks in advance,

Julien, The Netherlands.

I own a 54 Fleetwood but mines a work in progress and isn't all original condition unfortunately. So to find one of these cars at this age being all original or mostly original is a huge plus.

I also own a 64 Cadillac SDV and I have to say that both cars are vastly different from one another in the way they drive, feel, and handle.

The 54 Cad is definitely a more bulky, more clumsy car to drive vs the 64. You also sit much higher up almost like being in a crossover vehicle.

Ease of entry is much better in the 54 because of how much taller these cars are vs the 60's Cadillacs. I have to bend down low to get into my 64, and climb out of it, while the 54, I simply slide in and out with zero problems.

The typical issues on these cars is rust around the lower edges of the rear wheel well where the fender skirts meet. My 54 does have rust is various spots but it's not severe or anything too terrible for it's age.

Mechanically speaking, the 331 and 429 engines look identical for the most part and share a lot similarities. These 54 Cads uses the old school Hydramatic transmission which isn't as reliable or modern as a TH400 that's in your 67, so look out for severe transmission fluid leaks around the Torus cover and very rough shifting throughout the gears.


Parts are harder to come by since it is a 50's Cadillac so if something breaks, it will take time to find the right parts for these cars. Also the 54 suspension system uses rear leaf springs and uses a front Kingpin style suspension vs the rear coil spring, front ball-joint suspension system that's in the 67 Cads which is more common and less expensive to repair and replace.

Kingpin style suspension is more robust and sturdy than the ball joint suspension, but it doesn't articulate well compared to the ball joint design. Therefore the 54 might ride more firmly with less cushiness compared to the 67.

These cars are much much simpler to work on, and have way less components to go wrong. So you might find the 54 being an easier car to own in the long run if everything works correctly. The one thing I will say that the wiring system is very primitive and prone to failure. So this definitely can be a problem especially with broken wires easily being a concern because of its age and hunting down a bad wire can be a headache.

There's a ton a chrome on these cars, and because of how "fat" the bodies are, you feel like it takes all day to wash and wax these cars. All that sheetmetal and chrome trim, everything just takes so long to detail. My 64 takes half of the time to wash and wax compared to my 54 Fleetwood that literally can take me hours and hours to fully polish and wax.

Hope that helps.

[V63]

1954 was the 2nd year for 12volt system which is a great plus! The fabric wire harness (already mentioned) can be a challenge depending on its deterioration level.

1954 was the first year for optional "electric" window and seat motors vs hydroelectric.

Power steering is nice too.

The power brakes can be problematic to repair at this age.

I have owned similar 1955-1956 but not a 54  ... I really enjoyed them all and also the differences of that era of automobile.

The price seems reasonable.

[79 Eldorado]

Julien,
My comments are general but here are a few thoughts which ran through my head..
1) My best advice to anyone buying a "special" vehicle is to focus on one which you really like. The 67 you have and this new '54 will at minimum compete for your driving time. Everything needs maintenance and there will always be the need for repairs.
2) You seemed to be very focused on originality but it sounds like you are really interested in driving it somewhat frequently (my assumption). Is all original important to you because you want it to always stay that way or because you prefer something which was not modified? If keeping it original after you purchase it and you intend to drive frequently eventually those interests will be in conflict.

I have too many vehicles. Most serve the same basic purpose so I cannot justify how many I have because one fills a specific special need. I'm attached to all of them but I find that all of my time is spent on maintenance/improvements/repairs. That leaves me no time to drive.

I tend to like an original look but it's normally my preference to have a more refined ride. The older the generation of car the more the driving experience can be compared to "truck-like". That comment doesn't mean much now because even trucks are so refined. Anyway I suspect, without first hand experience, the 54 will feel like an older more truck-like driving experience than the '67.

Is the 54 the vehicle for you which really "checks all of the boxes" or are you interested in it because you are amazed it could be so original? There's one rare sub-model car which I've always liked but I would never really want to buy. That sounds strange but if I intend to drive it frequently I know 100% original isn't exactly what I would want and part of me would feel guilty changing anything.

Scott

[Julien Abrahams]

Thank you for all the tips and food for thought. With regard to the checking of the vehicle I was indeed planning on going over more precisely including crawling under it to check for leaks, chassis rust etc).
With regard to the driving experience I am assuming that you will feel like your driving an older car (which of course it is). The '67 drives very well with plenty of power and a very smooth transmission. I understand that the '54 has almost 100 hp less and a less refined transmission, also no variable ratio power steering and that the brakes will take more effort. But it is also slightly less complicated (no power windows or power seats). On the other hand I really like the '54. Looks wise I think it is cooler than the '67. Also I have always wanted a '50's Cadillac, but up unitl now they were out of my reach (price wise). Last year I changed jobs and that gave me the opportunity to set some money aside every month.

I don't think I drive my cars a lot though. I would guess about 500 to 1000 miles a year, but I think that is also a bit optimistic. This would be my fourth classic car in the 'collection' so I am beginning to understand the time working on them compared to driving them or just time in general (with a full time job) is sometimes a challenge. And I'm sure (money, time and space wise) that 5 cars in total is more than enough for me .
Today I am organizing a car show myself and the owner of the '54 stated that, if he has the time, he will come and visit. A test drive of the car will then also be an option. Otherwise we will plan a meeting to check out the car in more detail and test drive it somewhere next week.
I will keep you posted and I am sure that things will come up that I need help with.

[harvey b]

Do you have anyone you can take with you to see it,someone who has bodywork or mechanical experience?.Wouldnt hurt to have a second set of eyes to look it over,different people see different things when they both look at the same thing?. harveyb

[79 Eldorado]

Julien,
If this is car number five I would ask yourself if you like the '54 more than one of your other cars to the point you would sell a current car to buy the '54. I created the rule for myself..."No more until I make the commitment to sell one I already have". I considered modifying that rule to be sell two before I buy one. There are a lot of cars I would like but that rule prevents me from getting anything else. My problem is there's something I like about all of them and I get too attached to them.

Is the 67 an Eldorado? I don't have one but since the first time I saw one, didn't know what it was at the time, I really thought it was a good looking design.

Scott

[Caddy Wizard]

I have had 22 Cadillacs between 49 and 62, including several 1954 models.  Here are my thoughts:

54 is an excellent year mechanically.  The engine is smooth, not terribly prone to vapor lock (compared to some later years that produce more power), and very reliable (mechanically).  The Achilles heel of the engine is the original ignition system and the fuel system.  95% of "engine" problems will actually be fuel or ignition.

The 54 4-speed Hydramatic transmission is extremely reliable.  If it works well now, it will probably work well for many years to come.  Many.  Leaks are common, but can be fixed.  Shifting from 1-2 and from 3-4 are fairly smooth when the transmission is properly adjusted.  The shift from 2-3 is noticeably harsher than modern transmissions and does not indicate any problem with the transmission -- that is just how they work.

Wiring is 12v and the wires are covered with polymer (plastic), not cloth.  Very reliable wiring and few 54s will ever need to have the wiring harness replaced.  Electric motors in the windows work smoothly and reliably.  Battery is a size 3E, which has a low cold cranking amp rating and they can be killed if the engine is hard to start.  Battery is a pain in the neck to change due to its weight and location.

54 sedan has a quiet body with few rattles or noises. 

Brakes are very good when redone to factory standards as described in the Shop Manual.  Unfortunately, many mechanics redo the brakes without ever reading the Shop Manual, resulting in less than optimal braking performance.

[PHIL WHYTE CLC 14192]

As the owner of a 54 CDV I fully endorse everything Art Gardner has said.

[64\/54Cadillacking]

I personally love the styling of the 53-56 Cadillacs including the 58-59,specifically Fleetwoods. The 54 does stand out much more and is very imposing more so than pretty much any 60's Cadillacs IMO just because of how massively styled they are with all the thick extra chrome trim, massive bumpers and grill, the bullet dagmars, mean aggressive front end overall body design and styling is a sight to behold in person.

My 64 Cadillac is a gem and I really enjoy driving it, but my 54 Fleetwood has a lot more interior space in every dimension than the 64, and sitting higher up in the car makes you feel more in command of the road. The 54 uses better materials, is heavier, and just feels more solid.

Both cars are very cool for different reasons, but the 50's Cads are simply magical and are very artistic in their own right. Once you experience driving, and sitting inside  one, there's no going back ,you will be hooked for life.

[Julien Abrahams]

Thanks for all the info guys! I will go and see the car again to have a closer look and take my time to inspect it all around (including the bottom chassis). And I will take it for a test drive. That will happen either this week or the next, depending on the available time of the seller and myself. I will keep you posted and if I buy it will post some pictures on here.

[Julien Abrahams]

UPDATE:

So I went to see the car yesterday. I had enough time to speak with the owner at length. In short, he bought the car in the States in 2003, registered in The Netherlands in February 2004 and has since driven it pretty often. I got its general inspections here, but the last inspection was supposedly in 2008 (in the Netherlands all cars which are 50+ years old do not need to go to the inspection.
I test drove the car and it is a lot of fun. Completely different to the '67. The car runs well on LPG (liquified petrol gas) but idles lumpy on gasoline. Gas gauge showed practically empty. I suspect that the car has not been driven with regular gas (old gas in the tank) and the ignition etc has been set to run best on LPG. So I will have to address that in the future. Tires are 20 years old, so they need to be replaced as well (there are bias ply tires on there now....) I also noticed that although the current owner has owned the car for almost 20 years, he did not know the original color name, what all the knobs in the interior did and some other things. A bit strange. But, the body tag states paint color 3 (which should be Viking Blue, and was 'iridescent'. I am not sure what iridescent means. Was that early mettalic (like the Firemist colors in the 60's?). Interior is code 52 (blue gabardine wool).
Paint and interior are completely original and except for one small tear on the front backrest (drivers side) in very good condition. The headliner is dark gray fabric (wool?) and I do not know if that is original. Based on the rest of the car, I think it is.
The seller suggested to make an appointment at a local garage so I can see the undercarriage. Also I want the car to be inspected (with the same criteria that all cars are inspected every year here in the Netherlands). I am not an expert on for example checking play at the front/rear suspension, check for leaks, etc. I think it is good to have an independent car mechanic inspect the car before buying. If that all turns out well, than in the next weeks I will purchase it.
Then in the coming period try to fix the lumpy idle when running on gasoline and change the tires.

[Roger Zimmermann]

Iridescent is for metallic paint. Why this word? I don't know. On some paint charts, the metallic colors are called "poly". At that time, Firemist colors were not yet available.
LPG = in my opinion, trouble in the future because those engines are not designed for that. On one side, I can understand because the LPG is so cheap compared to gasoline.
REcently, I replaced the bias-ply tires from my Biarritz. They were 30 years old!

[64\/54Cadillacking]

That's great Julian. I would definitely pay to have the car inspected on a lift especially for that kind of money the seller is asking for the car.

So how would you compare it to your 67? Which car do you think is cooler and rode better? I'm just curious because there's not a lot of comparison made on here from the 50's Cadillac's  vs other decades of Cadillac's from their owners.

Keep us posted if you do decide to buy the car. 

[79 Eldorado]

No first hand experience but I've heard people say an LPG conversion on some cars can be rough on heads and valves. Maybe someone else could comment. If that's true you may want to have a garage do a compression and a leak down test.

Scott

[Roger Zimmermann]

So how would you compare it to your 67? Which car do you think is cooler and rode better? I'm just curious because there's not a lot of comparison made on here from the 50's Cadillac's  vs other decades of Cadillac's from their owners.

As you know, I had a '56 Sedan de Ville, a 1957 Brougham, both are sold. Still have the '56 Biarritz and now a '72 Coupe de Ville. The ride in the cars from the fifties is more or less like a truck (Sure, a nice one!); what a difference compared to the '72! Sure, the Brougham, with its ball studs steering and a mostly identical steering gear had a more precise steering than both '56 cars with their king pin set-up. I could add that the steering from the '72 is almost too light.
The insufficient engine cooling from the fifties is gone with the '72. This aspect was the most annoying issue from the older cars. On the other side, the fuel economy was better with the older cars, and I prefer the way the old Hydramatic was functioning.

[wheikkila]

I have had a lot of experience with propane systems. Some are very good and some are worse then others. But they are all high maintenance systems. The other problem is now you have two fuel systems with carburetors to maintain and timing adjustments need to make to make the vehicle run correctly. Honestly I would run one system only. A well set up propane system can run very well and runs clean. Just my thoughts.
        Thanks Wayne     

[Julien Abrahams]

With regard to the difference between the '54 and the '67 I have to agree with Mr. Zimmermann. You can really tell that the '67 is simply younger. For example. The suspension of the '67 feels more controlled, as does the steering. Although the '54 has very light steering (which can also be due to a remanufactured steering pump in the '67: with the old pump, the pump was more quiet and the steering a little bit lighter). Although the steering is light, it is also pretty imprecicse. Ofcourse this is also influenced by 20 year old bias ply tires (in comparison with 5 year old modern radial tires on the '67). Also the variable ratio steering in the '67 makes a difference. With regard to the transmission: the TH400 is simply put, a better gear box. You can really feel the switch pitch, and it just shifts smoother, regardless of whether your feathering the gas pedal or flooring it. However, I found that although you can feel the shifts in the '54, I don't think it shifts hard. Keeping in mind that this is, with a few minor changes, the same basic deisgn as the 1940 Hydramatic, I believe  it is a fantastic piece of engineering.
The same goes for the brakes. The '54 has much more free travel (the first inch or so, basically nothing happens). The '67 you can slow down with basically your big toe only (unless you are coming off the freeway, it is still 2.2 tons that has to come to a stop). With regard to visibility it is equal although because of the visibility of the 4 corners, the '67 is slighlty easier to park in for example a garage because you can see where it begins and stops.
But, I do think the '54 is cooler. And it is more of a handfull to drive, which I like. You need to work and need to pay attention. This ofcourse is also partly due to the fact that it was my first time driving an American car from the fifties which still belongs to someone else. You don't want to crash into a parked car or a car that suddenly comes around a tight bend. I am sure it is different if it is your own car and you are used to it.

I drove a '78 Lincoln town car once. And this again was different (tighter steering, quieter, easier to drive).

But if you went easy driving then you step into a modern car. The differences and challenges of driving a car that is almost 70 years old is what makes it so much fun.

@Wayne: I had the same experience with my '67. It never ran well on LPG. After fixing the fuel pump, taking the carburettor apart cleaning it and replacing the gaskets (with a carb rebuild kit), new iginition points, setting timing, dwell and mixture it now runs beautifully on gasoline (removed the LPG system completely). So most likely I will do the same with the '54. Although LPG is about half the price of gas, these cars were designed to run on gasoline and not propane.  And it also depends on how many miles a year you drive the car. I don't drive that often or far (not sure, but I think I put maybe 500 miles on it per year.

I am having the '54 gone over by an inspector/mechanic who does nothing except technically inspect cars for the annual inspection (In England it is called MOT, I am not sure what it is called in the States). The car will be on the lift which gives me the opportunity to check the bottom for rust and leaks. That will happen most likely either this Wednesday or this Friday. I will keep you guys posted.