my first car was a 55 Plymouth Savoy 2 door sedan, turquoise with a white top, it was 13yrs old when I bought it for $175, and only 35k. it was a fabulous car in high school. v8,automatic, with after mkt a.c.
We had one of these when I was a kid. It was a very well used car when we had it in the early to mid seventies, but it was our dependable car. We also had a 1960 Porsche 356B, a Datsun 510, a 1941 Pontiac fastback, and a forties Plymouth pickup, which never ran and we had all of them at the same time. The Belvidere was the one we could always count on to run. I can attest to the dependability of the Hi-fyre V-8 and the powerflight transmission. I did not remember it not having park in the transmission, but I never got to shift it like I did the Porsche. The wipers always worked, but it didn't make much difference because the defrost never did, so you had to drive while wiping the windshield with your sleeve. Apparently there was a shut off in the coolant lines to keep hot coolant from circulating in the heater core in summer, which would corrode and not move in winter. I'm sure that as old as the car was when we had it, the front end was probably worn. That said, the comments about handling ability were bunk. My mother couldn't even keep it on the road and never drove it. Only my stepfather could handle it, and he was a 6'2" farm boy. I can remember stretching out on the back seat and falling asleep many times: it was a very comfortable seat. I was quite sad when we sold it, and if I could have any of them back, that would be the one. I always thought it looked like it had the cheerful face of a small boy, sort of like the Gerber baby.
I RESPECT WHAT ALL THE AMERICAN CAR MANUFACTURERS HAVE CONTRIBUTED OVER THE DECADES , HOWEVER IN 57- 58 PLYMOUTH’S FURY WAS CHEVY AND FORDS EQUAL , DUAL CARBS WERE NOT UNCOMMON IN THOSE YEARS THE 350 COMMANDO RATED AT 305 HORSES WOULD WAX MOST OF THE COMPETITION AND HAD THE HANDLING OF A BIG ROAD CAR !!! THE 392 HEMI IN THE CHRYSLER IMPERIAL AND DESOTOS WERE POWERHOUSES IN 57-58 -59 !!!
I had a '55 Plymouth hardtop coupe, turquoise and white. It must have looked great when it was new. It was given to me for free in 1976 by a medical student at a local college. The car ran but had so many issues that he quit driving it. The landlord was threatening to have it towed away, so when I inquired about the car, he said I could have it, but I had to promise that I'd never let it go to a junkyard. First off, the driver's side rear leaf spring had collapsed. It was just drivable that way, barely. Next, the striker plate on the driver's side door was wore out, so if I made a quick right-hand turn the door would fly open. As it was, I had to rig a swing set chain from the rear window crank to the outside door handle to keep the door shut! I found a used leaf spring in a local junkyard, but finding that striker plate for the door was a trick. Dealers stock were long gone and I scoured all of the salvage yards for an 80 mile radius and never found one. That was back in the day before EBay Motors and all the restoration specialty parts stores we see today. On the plus side the drivetrain was solid. The Red Ram Hemi and two speed automatic ran well, but the car was slow. Eventually, I picked up another car and put the Plymouth up for sale. I beleive I got $300. for it . . . not bad for a free car. Thankfully, the guy who bought it stated he was a collector and he was going to restore it.
Yes. It was a rare bird way back when I had it, including in the salvage yards. The largest salvage yard I went to had two, heavily picked over at that. @@autochronicles8667
I like all 50s and 60s cars nowadays, even the ones that left me kind of cold when they were new - 49 - 52 Pontiacs, 55 - 56 Pontiacs, and 62 - 64 Chevys come to mind. They are all gorgeous compared to today's Japaniod tin cans.
I don't know, the movie made the car or the car made the movie? :) Could have used a variety of cars. The 55 Plymouth was a little more business though :)
Salesman: Plymouth is THE new car for 1955. Customer: wait a minute, Chevy is new too! Salesman: "Sure, but that's a Chevy." First interaction and the sales person gets caught in a lie
Actually the film strip is right. Looked up the specs. Both have the same 115" wheelbase. The Plymouth is eight inches longer and a bit wider and lower - both close to 1960's and beyond intermediate sized. The Plymouth also has a bit more hip room and noticeably more leg room in front and rear.
I'm sure that is all true but the size and weight of the Tri Five Chevys made them perfect for racing, drag and oval track, Even Rapid Roy the Stock car Boy drove a 57 Chevrolet! 😀 Plus the availablity and price of Small block Chevy parts made it all just about perfect.
I find it humorous the key points that are made to sell the vehicles. Most are obviously either trivial or are disingenuous. Of course, dealers today just use other nonsense to get money out of you.
Roy Ross had some seriously dedicated people, super detailed paper analysis\comparisons also, i have quite a few of those... GM/Ford treated it as an after thought it seems...
Chrysler Corp. did indeed have some firsts and achievements with their engineering such as the Hemi engines,I think the first claim of 300 horsepower in a production American car was the 1955 Chrysler "300" but that caliber of engine was a little late arriving at Plymouth which was sort of a price leader I understand the Hemi (s) were heavy and cost more to manufacture and that Chrysler's competition simply figured out that they could match Hemi power by just making their engines a bit larger displacement (and eat a little more gasoline per horsepower) but the public didn't mind too much as gasoline was cheap in those days.
Their defense was just said "does the car work?" and the answer is yes. And it's true, does a 6 volt system work on the 55 Plymouth? Yes it does everything it needs to.
It worked well with the six but I think cranked a bit slow with the V8 especially in winter. Better remember to change the oil to winter viscosity!@@autochronicles8667
@@matrox That happens on all cars with a generator, 6 or 12 volts, unless the engine is spinning at over 1800 RPM. Generators don't put out much at lower revs, unlike alternators, BUT, generators will fully charge up a low battery, whereas alternators may not.
What we have here is a dealer information presentation entitled, “Selling the 1955 Plymouth Against the Chevrolet.” The idea is to help the dealer sell the 1955 Plymouth automobile against the Chevrolet. The more of these 1955 Plymouth automobiles the dealer sells against the Chevrolet, the more money he and the motor company will make.
@@jamesbosworth4191 which Cars? Not the Big 3. The Brake pedals of my 50s and 60s Mopars are huge. And the Brake Pedal is left, next to the gas, just Like the left foot to the right, so there is no problem
@@bigblockjalopy The Cadillac and Buick before 56, the Chrysler products before 55 come to mind. The brake pedal on my 54 New Yorker is only slightly wider than the clutch pedal on a Plymouth. Ditto for my Dad's 55 Cad and my buddy's 54 Buick. Ironically, the 41 - 48 Chryslers, Imperials, and DeSotos with Fluid Drive DID have a wide brake pedal.
Really stretching things to say an overhead valve six is better than the flathead Plymouth engine. Powerflite is better than the Chevy Powerglide though. Both only two speeds but the higher multiplication from the Powerflite is because of having a two element torque converter stator. Chevy power steering was an add on, but integral with the steering box on the Plymouth.
@@autochronicles8667 They were, even in the 80s, but the luxury cars had thicker door skins and thicker, more sound-absorbent door panels, which made them sound more expensive and higher quality.
I still remember when my dad brought home his 55 Plymouth Savoy. I was 5 years old. Still remember, red car with black trim. It was a 6 cylinder, no radio, no power equipment and the heat was not very good, I was always cold in the winter in that car.
This one just reeked of Plymouth's desperation. Look how many years the small block Chevy engine stuck around. The Hy Fire didn't stick around too long.
Ok..The future was not very kind to Plymouth..I've been to hundreds of car shows & yet to see one of these 1955 Plymouth Belvedere Yet I've seen Many Chevy 1955 1956 & 1957 Tri Years
Yeah , the Plymouth sounds good now but wait until Mr. Brenner gets into the finance guy’s office. He’ll be pitched the window etching, paint protection,wheel and tire package, ADM 🤣🤣👍
These dealer training films is like listening to "Mother Goose" stories! When the voice over said, " Plymouth does not need 12V starting system because it's ENGINEERED TO START INSTANTLY EVERYTIME ", that was ENOUGH for me to STOP watching! LOL
Got to love the voice over stuff :) The nostalgia gets me, and yes if the car starts runs and does everything you need it to, a 6 volt system is just fine.
My favorite shifter was "all American" push button drive on our Chrysler products in the 50-60s. Learned to drive on a three-on-the-tree Ford Falcon. :)@@jamesbosworth4191
actually were have come full circle... we have push button shifting... and they were moving to 12 volt and the hemi/poly sphere engines... I have a 55 video were Chrysler was all crazy over the poly.
@@autochronicles8667 That was actually a fine engine. Cheaper to build than a true HEMI, only suffers on the exhaust side - the exhaust ports aren't as close to straight as they are on a true HEMI, but the intake ports are. The 54 Dodge trucks offered a Poly version of the 241 Dodge Red Ram V8, the first Chrysler Polyspheric engine. Shame that they didn't offer it on the 54 Plymouth. Dodge 1/2 ton pickups usually used Plymouth engines, and the 54 Dodge hardtops, convertibles, and 2 door station wagons were Plymouth-based cars, so it would have not cost Chrysler a thing. They would have had the hottest low-priced car by a long shot.
well that comes to amount sold... they sold a lot more Chevys... People don't even know what a 55 Plymouth is. They are still pretty cool in their own right though.
THE CARS OF THE 50 ‘S HAD ALOT OF STYLING AND SIMILARITIES OFFERING BOTH 6, 8 CYLINDER ENGINES FOR ECONOMY & POWER , I CALL IT THE FAT BOY ERA OF CARS , BY 57 AMERICA 🇺🇸 WAS INTRODUCED TO A SLIMMER , SLEEKER , SWEEPING LONG LOOK !!
@@antoniohosino145 Put YOUR glasses on and look at the face of the car. Ford, Chevy, and Plymouth do NOT look similar. Plymouth's windshield doesn't look like the other two's windshield either. Today's Japaniod tin cans look much more alike between makes than cars of the 50s did.
@@antoniohosino145 What does that have to do with styling? NOTHING! If you want to talk about rusting, I will give it to GM. They seem to have been the most rust resistant, at least here in California, where we don't use salt on the roads.
Plymouth,at least the station wagons had some nifty luggage compartments. I think overall I would have to vote for the Chev. especially with the V8 other than the first few months productions and I would avoid both of those horrid automatic transmissions. The salesman's claim about the "Powerflite" having more torque multiplication I think was false. Both torque converters probably could multiply torque by about a factor of 2 but the multiplication fell off rapidly as the car gained momentum. The same torque converters if used with V8 engines would probably multiply by a somewhat bigger factor (but would probably generate more heat) (V8 might have required sturdier heavier converters with inherent lower multiplication given the same maximum input)
I think they may be referring to the whole "gearing"... meaning the rear differential gearing and transmission etc. I don't think a car salesman wanted to go in depth into the whole drive train gear ratios with a customer and to say the torque converter did the job better was easier.
The Powerflite did have a greater converter multiplication factor, but none of the 2 speed automatics could match HydraMatic, or even Ford-O-Matic, for acceleration, nor could the late 50s Buick Flite Pitch DynaFlow and the Chevy Turboglide, both triple turbine automatics.
Because GM was #1, partly because GM cars didn't rust, Ford was #2. Chrysler was the underdog at #3. Before 1952, Chrysler cars were almost rust proof, but in 52 they started losing that, and by 57 they were made of rust.
@saxongreen78 And it was the best looking by far. The 55 Chevy 150 and the 55 Ford Mainline were ultra plain, even plainer than their 54 predecessors, while the Plaza offered Savoy-style two-tone paint, which came with Savoy-style side trim, making for a much more attractive car.
I'm sorry but Chrysler products never appealed to me until the 65' Crown Imperial as a Luxury car, then I took notice of the 67 Barracuda after they dumped the ugly Valiant body style. The 65's only look good hopped up with fat tires. Then in 68' when they hit it out of the park with the 68' Dodge Charger. Ironically the first car I ever owned was a hand me down 65 Plymouth barracuda. The first car I bought was a 69' Ply Road Runner in the mid 70s right out of HS. My current car is a Chevy. 17' Super Sport Camaro with a 6 speed manual trans. Love it.
Chevy didn't have a parking gear in 55 either I don't think. We had a 55' Rocket 88 Olds when I was young kid and it didn't have a parking gear. You leave it in drive or reverse and pull the parking brake. Drop it in neutral to start it.
Chevy Powerglile always had a Park, but HydraMatic didn't, until 56. For 55 and before, you were supposed to put it in Reverse then shut the engine off. That was supposed to have functioned the way Park on others did.
Wow! look at the styling difference. No wonder Plymouth went under as it is no longer made. Did I mention Chevy's V8 runs rings around the Plymouth V8?
The Plymouth's styling was a real dog's breakfast, while the Chevy's styling was simple and crisp...which means more classy. Proof is in the pudding...almost 70 years later, the 55 Belair is a sought after classic, while the Belvedere is a long forgotten, much uglier, pretender.
@@Mike-p8e8f Styling is an opinion. What I think is ugly, such as most Japanese cars, you might like, and vice versa. Some of us like elaborate styling, some of us like simple styling, some of us don't care much about a car's looks, but care more about performance, room, riding comfort, handling, etc., especially with low-priced cars.
There were many less Plymouths made and most cars were disposable... I think you would find it's probably a similar disposal rate... They sold TONS of 55 Chevies and there is still only a handful of them left... You can find 55 Plymouths and obviously they don't have the following the tri-5's do but they are still out there.
@@autochronicles8667 The only 55 Plymouth I still see is one with flat tires in a used car lot that seems abandoned. Today, the gate was actually opened, but nobody was there, and the Oldsmobiles had been moved around, so I guess somebody at least checks on the place. There is a 56 a few blocks from me though.
Good old Plymouth, go whipping around the corner and stay on the road! ROADABILITY!!!! Get up and GO! Put your foot to the floor and watch it burn rubber! Chev wont do that!!!!
Who needs a 12 volt battery….until 1956 that is. Who needs a Park position until they did 4 years later. A lot of Bull in that video. How many 1955 Plymouths are still around? How man Chevys?
Don't know about the 2 speed Chev. but it is said that the Oldsmobile Hydramatic (at least by 1956) if shifted into reverse before the engine was shut off would provide a parking lock effect. (I don't remember whether my Grandfather's '56 had a parking detent on the shifter window.) 1960 Chrysler had a much improved 3 speed automatic as opposed to the '55 Plymouth but still had no park position feature.
@@davidpowell3347 The new for 56 Dual Coupling Hydramatic had a Park, but the 55 and older ones didn't. You, just like you say, shifted into Reverse, then shut it off.
Oh, knowing what I know about old cars.... Six volts is cheaper? 12 is the standard now... go figure... back then batteries had less amperage. But a 6 would have more amps because of bigger cells.... And that Chevy power assist steering? It worked so well that Corvettes were still using it 25 years later.....
6 volts costs MORE. That is the reason for the change-over to 12 volts. It was a big cost save, but because people see it as an upgrade, they could charge more for the car. A win-win for the automakers.
Batteries used to have thick partitions between cells,12 volts had more cells so wasted more space/volume on the partitions. Later batteries would use different case construction with thin partitions so less wasted volume. 12 volt saved on wiring which could be lighter gauge,less copper needed. Six volt cars with large engines need main battery/starter cables almost as thick as welding cable. Some cars used a large Group 27 battery size (12 volt such as Chrysler) and some old 6 volt cars had a larger long battery that was around 17 or 19 inches long if I remember. Such six volt cars as 1950 Buicks and Pontiac Eights which were hard to crank in cold weather.
@@davidpowell3347 You have to remember, multi-grade oil didn't exist before the mid 50s, and even as late as the 80s, there were people who wouldn't use it, such as myself. The reason being that early multi-grade wasn't very good and would shear.
I don't know if survivability, and sales number are the end all be all judge of a cars success :) I mean if that was the case Ferraris would be worthless? Plymouth had much smaller sales than Ford/GM... So they didnt get exposure. You have to admit Mopar had good performing cars. The Hemi was banned from racing it was so successful.
Plymouth was still the "little guy"... I think a 56 Fury is a great looking car. They were fighting "brand loyal" buyers.... they would steal a lot from GM in 57 though :)
55' Chevy a proven classic. Even when both these cars were seen every day on our roads I always felt the Chevy had that something special. The mopars of that era just looked like they were for old folks. When I was a tyke on my tricycle an old couple up the street had a 55' Ply.
Never cared for tri-five Chevy’s styling. To me what was special about them was under the hood. I think Plymouth and Studebaker both had better looking cars in ‘55.
@@seed_drill7135Ford blew them all out of the water in '56 ,then gM showed how bad style could become with the thrown together 57 and still horrible handling.....!
Thanks. Not familiar with kingpins. But I know ball joints are a pain, even with the special machine. And sooner or later, they will need replaced--not inexpensive.
Think the Chev. had an option for 180 horsepower. (More next year but probably also so for Plymouth) Both automatics were about equally miserable,the claim that the Plymouth with the old fashioned L head six would outaccelerate the Chev. six is probably false. The L head six might indeed have had lower maintenance needs. By that year both cars' automatics had automatic shifting between low and high. The 1952 Chev. with powerglide may have functioned as a one speed in Drive with an "emergency low gear" that had to be manually selected. Habitual use of it to do "jackrabbit starts" would cause premature need for a transmission rebuild. The Plymouth's V8 engine,if the same as Dodge's "polysphere" engine indeed would have been a good feature,I think that might have been the first year that any Plymouth offered a V8 option.
You are correct for the most part, but the Powerflite was better than the Chevy Powerglide, enough so that a Powerflite Plymouth 6 would indeed out run a Powerglide Chevy 6 (by a little), but with stick shift, it was Chevy hands down. The 55 Plymouth V8 was a Dodge 241 with Polyspheric, instead of HEMI, heads, with a 260 option. The 56 had a 270 early on, which was a Poly version of the 55 Dodge 270, then later the 56 Plymouth had a new 277 engine. The early Chevy Powerglide operated just like the Buick Dynaflow, and was a scaled down version of it, always in High, unless you put it in Lo. If you wanted to use it that way, you were smart to lift off the gas when shifting to Drive, or else you would soon wear out the High clutch. Ditto with Dynaflow
Not that the Plymouth was a bad car- it was very modern looking for the time as opposed to the stodgy models that came before. But the clear winner for 55 by far was the chevy- many millions more were made, sold, and sought after, even today. Chevy essentially still makes the same engine,the small block, even today in crate engine form, although much different from the original 265. How many Plymouths are around today from that year? Not many. Most eaten by rust by the mid 60s. How long did Plymouth keep making the Hy-fire 277? Not long....
@@bradzimmerman3171 There is nothing wrong with pushrods. The heads are much cheaper, the timing chain is much shorter, which means less stretch and no need for all those guides that are made now of plastic and break up. In fact, with air-cooled engines, OHC is bad, as there is no way to properly fin the heads. With push rods, or even more so a flathead, that is no problem. The Chevy Silverado and it's GMC clone are among the safest vehicles on the road in all three areas - frontal crashes, side crashes, and roll-overs, all with a body bolted to a separate frame, and that is the 1/2 tons, the lightest duty versions. The 3/4 tons and the 1 tonners, which have thicker-gauge frames, are probably even better. And no, I do not own a late model. My GMC is a 73.
The 55 Chevy was a very good car, and it was pretty rust resistant. Maybe not as much so as the pre 52 Chrysler products, but still very good in that respect. The 55 Ford was a beauty, but I don't think it was as rust resistant as the Chevy. Plus, if the center cam shaft bearing was not properly installed, you would not get oil to both rocker shafts. One or both would be dry. Not really hard to fix, but requires quite a bit of disassembly.
@@jamesbosworth4191 All cars rusted back then depending on your climate and exposure to the elements. No such thing rust preventable treated steel back then. All that was available was ziebart rust proof coating and that was an option that most people didn't even get.
![[Dealer Film] 1953 Plymouth versus Ford film strip.... the verdict is in...](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/iDH_MP3KMj0/mqdefault.jpg)
my first car was a 55 Plymouth Savoy 2 door sedan, turquoise with a white top, it was 13yrs old when I bought it for $175, and only 35k. it was a fabulous car in high school. v8,automatic, with after mkt a.c.
Well he's convinced me... I'm off to buy a Plymouth first thing..
You can find them :) reasonably priced! :)
@@autochronicles8667 I can hear Hugh Beaumont,AKA Ward Cleaver answering the guy selling the car.
I'm off to order my two door hardtop black with white top, and with a v8!
I want a Dodge D50 !
Maybe an early 1960's pickup(Dodge) with the early 318 V8. @@benpluta6187
As much as I love the 55 chevy, the Plymouth looks like a 1960 car..
We had one of these when I was a kid. It was a very well used car when we had it in the early to mid seventies, but it was our dependable car. We also had a 1960 Porsche 356B, a Datsun 510, a 1941 Pontiac fastback, and a forties Plymouth pickup, which never ran and we had all of them at the same time. The Belvidere was the one we could always count on to run. I can attest to the dependability of the Hi-fyre V-8 and the powerflight transmission. I did not remember it not having park in the transmission, but I never got to shift it like I did the Porsche. The wipers always worked, but it didn't make much difference because the defrost never did, so you had to drive while wiping the windshield with your sleeve. Apparently there was a shut off in the coolant lines to keep hot coolant from circulating in the heater core in summer, which would corrode and not move in winter. I'm sure that as old as the car was when we had it, the front end was probably worn. That said, the comments about handling ability were bunk. My mother couldn't even keep it on the road and never drove it. Only my stepfather could handle it, and he was a 6'2" farm boy. I can remember stretching out on the back seat and falling asleep many times: it was a very comfortable seat. I was quite sad when we sold it, and if I could have any of them back, that would be the one. I always thought it looked like it had the cheerful face of a small boy, sort of like the Gerber baby.
I believe the Plymouth's kingpin front end was kind of primitive by 1955 standards.
@@davidpowell3347 Not yet, as most cars still used them. By 57, yes.
I'm gonna get the flathead six and I'm grateful for the six volt system
Yes nothing like saving and you will be saving six volts.
I RESPECT WHAT ALL THE AMERICAN CAR MANUFACTURERS HAVE CONTRIBUTED OVER THE DECADES , HOWEVER IN 57- 58 PLYMOUTH’S FURY WAS CHEVY AND FORDS EQUAL , DUAL CARBS WERE NOT UNCOMMON IN THOSE YEARS THE 350 COMMANDO RATED AT 305 HORSES WOULD WAX MOST OF THE COMPETITION AND HAD THE HANDLING OF A BIG ROAD CAR !!! THE 392 HEMI IN THE CHRYSLER IMPERIAL AND DESOTOS WERE POWERHOUSES IN 57-58 -59 !!!
I had a '55 Plymouth hardtop coupe, turquoise and white. It must have looked great when it was new. It was given to me for free in 1976 by a medical student at a local college. The car ran but had so many issues that he quit driving it. The landlord was threatening to have it towed away, so when I inquired about the car, he said I could have it, but I had to promise that I'd never let it go to a junkyard. First off, the driver's side rear leaf spring had collapsed. It was just drivable that way, barely. Next, the striker plate on the driver's side door was wore out, so if I made a quick right-hand turn the door would fly open. As it was, I had to rig a swing set chain from the rear window crank to the outside door handle to keep the door shut! I found a used leaf spring in a local junkyard, but finding that striker plate for the door was a trick. Dealers stock were long gone and I scoured all of the salvage yards for an 80 mile radius and never found one. That was back in the day before EBay Motors and all the restoration specialty parts stores we see today. On the plus side the drivetrain was solid. The Red Ram Hemi and two speed automatic ran well, but the car was slow. Eventually, I picked up another car and put the Plymouth up for sale. I beleive I got $300. for it . . . not bad for a free car. Thankfully, the guy who bought it stated he was a collector and he was going to restore it.
He was probably a Chevy guy who was just looking to scrap it! lol
was it a 2 door hard top? The 55 Plymouth is a rare bird today and parts are hard to find.
Yes. It was a rare bird way back when I had it, including in the salvage yards. The largest salvage yard I went to had two, heavily picked over at that. @@autochronicles8667
Mm, this sounds like a Bad Dream!
And today that chevy would be worth far more
Loved this, thanks! Pushing that 6V over the 12V was a tough sell though. Prob why they switched to 12V in '56.
Well it worked for the time :)
I liked the explaination of how a six volt system was better than a twelve
does the car start? yep... 6 volt works :0
lol what a fool
I like the Chevy.
I like all 50s and 60s cars nowadays, even the ones that left me kind of cold when they were new - 49 - 52 Pontiacs, 55 - 56 Pontiacs, and 62 - 64 Chevys come to mind. They are all gorgeous compared to today's Japaniod tin cans.
Imagine the movie "Two Lane Blacktop" with a ....1955 Plymouth!
Exactly...the movie would have been a flop.
No..! It was bad enough with the lame chevy but that's Hollywood for you phoney as always
I don't know, the movie made the car or the car made the movie? :) Could have used a variety of cars. The 55 Plymouth was a little more business though :)
Salesman: Plymouth is THE new car for 1955.
Customer: wait a minute, Chevy is new too!
Salesman: "Sure, but that's a Chevy."
First interaction and the sales person gets caught in a lie
That's what salesmen do best!
that new Chevy lacks the fresh agile look :) I'm surprised he didn't go with "bread box" :) But maybe he would save that for the 58 Chevies...
When I was in HS in the early and mid 70s a class mate drove a 46' Ply. coupe and his brother drove a 55' Chevy.
Actually the film strip is right. Looked up the specs. Both have the same 115" wheelbase. The Plymouth is eight inches longer and a bit wider and lower - both close to 1960's and beyond intermediate sized. The Plymouth also has a bit more hip room and noticeably more leg room in front and rear.
longer wider lower!
I'm sure that is all true but the size and weight of the Tri Five Chevys made them perfect for racing, drag and oval track, Even Rapid Roy the Stock car Boy drove a 57 Chevrolet! 😀 Plus the availablity and price of Small block Chevy parts made it all just about perfect.
Grandpa said on a morning with a heavy Dew Plymouth wouldn’t start
Say no more! I'll take 8 Plymouths!
Yes they make great gifts.
I find it humorous the key points that are made to sell the vehicles. Most are obviously either trivial or are disingenuous. Of course, dealers today just use other nonsense to get money out of you.
I find it very interesting that Chrysler seemingly produced many more dealer film strips than GM or Ford 😮
Roy Ross had some seriously dedicated people, super detailed paper analysis\comparisons also, i have quite a few of those... GM/Ford treated it as an after thought it seems...
Chrysler Corp. did indeed have some firsts and achievements with their engineering such as the Hemi engines,I think the first claim of 300 horsepower in a production American car was the 1955 Chrysler "300" but that caliber of engine was a little late arriving at Plymouth which was sort of a price leader
I understand the Hemi (s) were heavy and cost more to manufacture and that Chrysler's competition simply figured out that they could match Hemi power by just making their engines a bit larger displacement (and eat a little more gasoline per horsepower) but the public didn't mind too much as gasoline was cheap in those days.
@@davidpowell3347 The still couldn't match a HEMI's top end power though!
@@jamesbosworth4191 BAN THAT ENGINE! :) IT's too damn powerful :) "Bill France..."...
Ply lost me defending their 6volt sys. No defense for that.😅
Their defense was just said "does the car work?" and the answer is yes. And it's true, does a 6 volt system work on the 55 Plymouth? Yes it does everything it needs to.
@@autochronicles8667 Yeh then the lights dim when you let your foot off the gas or push in your cigarette lighter.
It worked well with the six but I think cranked a bit slow with the V8 especially in winter. Better remember to change the oil to winter viscosity!@@autochronicles8667
@@matrox That happens on all cars with a generator, 6 or 12 volts, unless the engine is spinning at over 1800 RPM. Generators don't put out much at lower revs, unlike alternators, BUT, generators will fully charge up a low battery, whereas alternators may not.
@@matrox Everybody smoked in 1955. EVERYBODY.
What we have here is a dealer information presentation entitled, “Selling the 1955 Plymouth Against the Chevrolet.” The idea is to help the dealer sell the 1955 Plymouth automobile against the Chevrolet. The more of these 1955 Plymouth automobiles the dealer sells against the Chevrolet, the more money he and the motor company will make.
Back in the day a lot of women drove with 2 feet, one for gas the other for brake. Men drove with one foot as most people do today.
Actually every Race Car Driver, or anyone who knows how to Drive fast, brakes with 2 feet, even back in the das. Watch "Thunder in Carolina" from 1959
Many cars with automatic used the same brake pedal as their stick-shift counterparts. You couldn't easily use two feet.
@@jamesbosworth4191 which Cars? Not the Big 3. The Brake pedals of my 50s and 60s Mopars are huge. And the Brake Pedal is left, next to the gas, just Like the left foot to the right, so there is no problem
@@bigblockjalopy The Cadillac and Buick before 56, the Chrysler products before 55 come to mind. The brake pedal on my 54 New Yorker is only slightly wider than the clutch pedal on a Plymouth. Ditto for my Dad's 55 Cad and my buddy's 54 Buick. Ironically, the 41 - 48 Chryslers, Imperials, and DeSotos with Fluid Drive DID have a wide brake pedal.
@@jamesbosworth4191 I was more thinking late 50s and Up, when Automatics were the rule
Really stretching things to say an overhead valve six is better than the flathead Plymouth engine. Powerflite is better than the Chevy Powerglide though. Both only two speeds but the higher multiplication from the Powerflite is because of having a two element torque converter stator. Chevy power steering was an add on, but integral with the steering box on the Plymouth.
Yet in 53, the Chevy DID have integral power steering. Strange how they down-graded on that.
Amazing Chevrolet could sell anything that year.
I had a 55 Plymouth, powerful flathead 6, sounded like a tin can when you shut the door. But it was dependable.
they all sounded like that :)
@@autochronicles8667 Cadillac, Lincoln, Buick and the like didn't sound like that.
@@jamesbosworth4191 In 55 I don't think any vehicle had sound proofing in the doors :) I think they were all shells.
@@autochronicles8667 They were, even in the 80s, but the luxury cars had thicker door skins and thicker, more sound-absorbent door panels, which made them sound more expensive and higher quality.
I still remember when my dad brought home his 55 Plymouth Savoy. I was 5 years old. Still remember, red car with black trim. It was a 6 cylinder, no radio, no power equipment and the heat was not very good, I was always cold in the winter in that car.
eh old cars you were always cold in the back :) No RADIO? :)
@@autochronicles8667some of them had radio covers the radio was an option
This one just reeked of Plymouth's desperation. Look how many years the small block Chevy engine stuck around. The Hy Fire didn't stick around too long.
They are using polys in vintage dyno competitions...
Ok..The future was not very kind to Plymouth..I've been to hundreds of car shows & yet to see one of these 1955 Plymouth Belvedere Yet I've seen Many Chevy 1955 1956 & 1957 Tri Years
Sir sir get me that Belair!!
Yeah , the Plymouth sounds good now but wait until Mr. Brenner gets into the finance guy’s office. He’ll be pitched the window etching, paint protection,wheel and tire package, ADM 🤣🤣👍
ITS CERAMIC! It's better than wax, so of course its worth 500$! CMON
@@autochronicles8667 🤣🤣🤣
These dealer training films is like listening to "Mother Goose" stories! When the voice over said, " Plymouth does not need 12V starting system because it's ENGINEERED TO START INSTANTLY EVERYTIME ", that was ENOUGH for me to STOP watching! LOL
Got to love the voice over stuff :) The nostalgia gets me, and yes if the car starts runs and does everything you need it to, a 6 volt system is just fine.
Words like "sure-footed" and "splayed" always close the deal.
Sold me on the Chevy
12 volt vs 6 volt, overhead valve vs flathead, column shifter vs dash mounted. Which ones are used today?
Good point, column sifters disappeared years ago. Most are console/dash mounted.
@@eugenepiurkowski5439 I still prefer column shifters and I hate intrusive center consoles, as I am not Japanese, and don't have Japanese tastes.
My favorite shifter was "all American" push button drive on our Chrysler products in the 50-60s. Learned to drive on a three-on-the-tree Ford Falcon. :)@@jamesbosworth4191
actually were have come full circle... we have push button shifting... and they were moving to 12 volt and the hemi/poly sphere engines... I have a 55 video were Chrysler was all crazy over the poly.
@@autochronicles8667 That was actually a fine engine. Cheaper to build than a true HEMI, only suffers on the exhaust side - the exhaust ports aren't as close to straight as they are on a true HEMI, but the intake ports are. The 54 Dodge trucks offered a Poly version of the 241 Dodge Red Ram V8, the first Chrysler Polyspheric engine. Shame that they didn't offer it on the 54 Plymouth. Dodge 1/2 ton pickups usually used Plymouth engines, and the 54 Dodge hardtops, convertibles, and 2 door station wagons were Plymouth-based cars, so it would have not cost Chrysler a thing. They would have had the hottest low-priced car by a long shot.
My Grandfather always regretted trading in his 40 Plymouth when he did. He regretted buying the 54. The 55 was a much better car.
55 was a pretty solid vehicle...
I would buy the Chevy. Still 55 Chevys around today. Do not see any 55 Plymouths.
well that comes to amount sold... they sold a lot more Chevys... People don't even know what a 55 Plymouth is. They are still pretty cool in their own right though.
...And how many Camrys will be around 70 years from now? They made eleventy million Chevy BelAirs.
I always liked the look of the 1955 and 1956 Fords a lot.
THE CARS OF THE 50 ‘S HAD ALOT OF STYLING AND SIMILARITIES OFFERING BOTH 6, 8 CYLINDER ENGINES FOR ECONOMY & POWER , I CALL IT THE FAT BOY ERA OF CARS , BY 57 AMERICA 🇺🇸 WAS INTRODUCED TO A SLIMMER , SLEEKER , SWEEPING LONG LOOK !!
They don't look much alike to me.
@@jamesbosworth4191 PUT ON YOUR GLASSES AND LOOK AT A 56 PLYMOUTH SAVOY AND A 56 CHEVY BEL - AIR ( SIMILARITIES } BODY LINES ................
@@antoniohosino145 Put YOUR glasses on and look at the face of the car. Ford, Chevy, and Plymouth do NOT look similar. Plymouth's windshield doesn't look like the other two's windshield either. Today's Japaniod tin cans look much more alike between makes than cars of the 50s did.
@@jamesbosworth4191 WELL EINSTEIN , YOU HAVE MADE YOUR POINT AND EVERYBODY’S GOT ONE ☝️PEACE !!! HOW MANY CARS HAVE YOU PAINTED OR RESTORED ?????
@@antoniohosino145 What does that have to do with styling? NOTHING! If you want to talk about rusting, I will give it to GM. They seem to have been the most rust resistant, at least here in California, where we don't use salt on the roads.
Of course decades later, which one is still popular and still on the road. Mopar definitely changed that desirability shortly after then.
Well Chevy certainly sold more a lot more cars... and Plymouth didn't survive :) Seeing a 55 Plymouth in the wild is a rare sight.
@@autochronicles8667 Haven't seen a 55 in some time, but there is a 56 just a few blocks from me.
Plymouth,at least the station wagons had some nifty luggage compartments.
I think overall I would have to vote for the Chev. especially with the V8 other than the first few months productions and I would avoid both of those horrid automatic transmissions.
The salesman's claim about the "Powerflite" having more torque multiplication I think was false. Both torque converters probably could multiply torque by about a factor of 2 but the multiplication fell off rapidly as the car gained momentum. The same torque converters if used with V8 engines would probably multiply by a somewhat bigger factor (but would probably generate more heat) (V8 might have required sturdier heavier converters with inherent lower multiplication given the same maximum input)
I think they may be referring to the whole "gearing"... meaning the rear differential gearing and transmission etc. I don't think a car salesman wanted to go in depth into the whole drive train gear ratios with a customer and to say the torque converter did the job better was easier.
The Powerflite did have a greater converter multiplication factor, but none of the 2 speed automatics could match HydraMatic, or even Ford-O-Matic, for acceleration, nor could the late 50s Buick Flite Pitch DynaFlow and the Chevy Turboglide, both triple turbine automatics.
Why were the steering wheels so big?
because they may or may not had power steering... a big wheel gets you leverage :)
How come Chevy and Ford outsell Plymouth?
Because GM was #1, partly because GM cars didn't rust, Ford was #2. Chrysler was the underdog at #3. Before 1952, Chrysler cars were almost rust proof, but in 52 they started losing that, and by 57 they were made of rust.
@saxongreen78 And it was the best looking by far. The 55 Chevy 150 and the 55 Ford Mainline were ultra plain, even plainer than their 54 predecessors, while the Plaza offered Savoy-style two-tone paint, which came with Savoy-style side trim, making for a much more attractive car.
Styling.
@jamesbosworth4191 GM's don't rust? That's a myth. I remember these car's and GM's rusted out fast.
@@jayschmahl9206 I'm talking about mid to late 50s, not 70s.
I have never heard of a 55 Chevy called a blunt nose barge! Perhaps a local thing!
I've heard people call the 58's a "brick" or a "loaf of bread" :) it doesn't have the look of "speed" like the Plymouth :)
Forward look? LOL.
Suddenly its 1960! the 100 million dollar look :)
I'm sorry but Chrysler products never appealed to me until the 65' Crown Imperial as a Luxury car, then I took notice of the 67 Barracuda after they dumped the ugly Valiant body style. The 65's only look good hopped up with fat tires. Then in 68' when they hit it out of the park with the 68' Dodge Charger. Ironically the first car I ever owned was a hand me down 65 Plymouth barracuda. The first car I bought was a 69' Ply Road Runner in the mid 70s right out of HS. My current car is a Chevy. 17' Super Sport Camaro with a 6 speed manual trans. Love it.
I'm a sucker for fins though :) and yes 68-70 Chargers and Roadrunners are right up there for me also.
Thanks for sharing
Chevy didn't have a parking gear in 55 either I don't think. We had a 55' Rocket 88 Olds when I was young kid and it didn't have a parking gear. You leave it in drive or reverse and pull the parking brake. Drop it in neutral to start it.
Olds '55 had a much much better 4 speed automatic.
Chevy Powerglile always had a Park, but HydraMatic didn't, until 56. For 55 and before, you were supposed to put it in Reverse then shut the engine off. That was supposed to have functioned the way Park on others did.
Wow! look at the styling difference. No wonder Plymouth went under as it is no longer made. Did I mention Chevy's V8 runs rings around the Plymouth V8?
I think the 55 Plymouth was a sharp looking car.
The Plymouth's styling was a real dog's breakfast, while the Chevy's styling was simple and crisp...which means more classy. Proof is in the pudding...almost 70 years later, the 55 Belair is a sought after classic, while the Belvedere is a long forgotten, much uglier, pretender.
@@Mike-p8e8f Styling is an opinion. What I think is ugly, such as most Japanese cars, you might like, and vice versa. Some of us like elaborate styling, some of us like simple styling, some of us don't care much about a car's looks, but care more about performance, room, riding comfort, handling, etc., especially with low-priced cars.
There were many less Plymouths made and most cars were disposable... I think you would find it's probably a similar disposal rate... They sold TONS of 55 Chevies and there is still only a handful of them left... You can find 55 Plymouths and obviously they don't have the following the tri-5's do but they are still out there.
@@autochronicles8667 The only 55 Plymouth I still see is one with flat tires in a used car lot that seems abandoned. Today, the gate was actually opened, but nobody was there, and the Oldsmobiles had been moved around, so I guess somebody at least checks on the place. There is a 56 a few blocks from me though.
I'll take ONE OF EACH, please!
Fast forward to 2023:
The world's most valuable carmaker spends zero $ on advertising or sales commissions.
Cmon "stock valuation" is just hype... Tesla is getting competition soon and fast :)
Tesla doesn’t make money selling cars… they make money selling carbon credits to other manufacturers…
soo, do you have any chevys in stock ?
SURE! We've got truck loads! :) Stop on by!
@@autochronicles8667 on my way!
~~ "O=^o>
The 55 Plymouth looked a lot more like a Ford than it did in 1953.
Good old Plymouth, go whipping around the corner and stay on the road! ROADABILITY!!!! Get up and GO! Put your foot to the floor and watch it burn rubber! Chev wont do that!!!!
lol and look at the "look of speed".... no big bread box with Plymouth :)
i have a 56,,,it would out run an out corner a ford or plymouth ,,,
A 56 Fury... thats a good looking car.
@@autochronicles8667 oh i like all of them i grew up in the 50s ,,
Who needs a 12 volt battery….until 1956 that is. Who needs a Park position until they did 4 years later. A lot of Bull in that video. How many 1955 Plymouths are still around? How man Chevys?
Don't know about the 2 speed Chev. but it is said that the Oldsmobile Hydramatic (at least by 1956) if shifted into reverse before the engine was shut off would provide a parking lock effect. (I don't remember whether my Grandfather's '56 had a parking detent on the shifter window.)
1960 Chrysler had a much improved 3 speed automatic as opposed to the '55 Plymouth but still had no park position feature.
@@davidpowell3347 The new for 56 Dual Coupling Hydramatic had a Park, but the 55 and older ones didn't. You, just like you say, shifted into Reverse, then shut it off.
@@davidpowell3347 But there were some 56 cars that had the old style Hydramatic.
I like the 55 Plymouth and DeSoto.
But it will never be better than a Chevy.
carlosdumbpez The Plymouth was a better car !!!
Oh, knowing what I know about old cars....
Six volts is cheaper? 12 is the standard now... go figure... back then batteries had less amperage. But a 6 would have more amps because of bigger cells....
And that Chevy power assist steering? It worked so well that Corvettes were still using it 25 years later.....
6 volts costs MORE. That is the reason for the change-over to 12 volts. It was a big cost save, but because people see it as an upgrade, they could charge more for the car. A win-win for the automakers.
Ford and Plymouth went to 12 volts the next year with their basically identical 1956 models.
@@emjayay A case of "If you can't beat them, join them".
Batteries used to have thick partitions between cells,12 volts had more cells so wasted more space/volume on the partitions. Later batteries would use different case construction with thin partitions so less wasted volume.
12 volt saved on wiring which could be lighter gauge,less copper needed. Six volt cars with large engines need main battery/starter cables almost as thick as welding cable.
Some cars used a large Group 27 battery size (12 volt such as Chrysler) and some old 6 volt cars had a larger long battery that was around 17 or 19 inches long if I remember. Such six volt cars as 1950 Buicks and Pontiac Eights which were hard to crank in cold weather.
@@davidpowell3347 You have to remember, multi-grade oil didn't exist before the mid 50s, and even as late as the 80s, there were people who wouldn't use it, such as myself. The reason being that early multi-grade wasn't very good and would shear.
Of course we all know who won this argument.
I don't know if survivability, and sales number are the end all be all judge of a cars success :) I mean if that was the case Ferraris would be worthless? Plymouth had much smaller sales than Ford/GM... So they didnt get exposure. You have to admit Mopar had good performing cars. The Hemi was banned from racing it was so successful.
I think if Plymouth removed the big chrome grill and did a grill like the 57-60 Plymouth cars it would be more popular than the 55 Chevys !!!!
Plymouth was still the "little guy"... I think a 56 Fury is a great looking car. They were fighting "brand loyal" buyers.... they would steal a lot from GM in 57 though :)
55' Chevy a proven classic. Even when both these cars were seen every day on our roads I always felt the Chevy had that something special. The mopars of that era just looked like they were for old folks. When I was a tyke on my tricycle an old couple up the street had a 55' Ply.
Never cared for tri-five Chevy’s styling. To me what was special about them was under the hood. I think Plymouth and Studebaker both had better looking cars in ‘55.
@@seed_drill7135Ford blew them all out of the water in '56 ,then gM showed how bad style could become with the thrown together 57 and still horrible handling.....!
@@seed_drill7135
kingpins are no joke to replace.
yeah Chrysler would move to ball joints pretty quickly
@@autochronicles8667 57, with the new Torsion Aire suspension.
Neither are ball joints--you need a special machine to do it--and not all service establishments had it back then.
@@phantomforester9337 King pins are actually pretty easy, unless they are frozen in place. You don't even need special tools.
Thanks. Not familiar with kingpins. But I know ball joints are a pain, even with the special machine. And sooner or later, they will need replaced--not inexpensive.
They were all blunt nose barges back then.
Chrysler came up with and was right about a lot of things but not 6 volt.
Yeah but it worked for the 55 :) They would soon ditch it when people needed more...
GM was selling to GM customers, and Chrysler was selling to Chrysler, Ford and GM customers XD
Defend your TURF! Then get there and SELL to the competition.... Brand loyalty was real in the 50s-60s... Are you a Chevy man? A Ford guy?
@@autochronicles8667 I have a few right hand drive unibody mopars, one with fins and the other one is a plucked chicken.
@@SigvardNZ Wow! Sure wish I could see them!
You need a birdie in your ear “wait two more models on the Chevy “
FIM ???
Think the Chev. had an option for 180 horsepower. (More next year but probably also so for Plymouth)
Both automatics were about equally miserable,the claim that the Plymouth with the old fashioned L head six would outaccelerate the Chev. six is probably false. The L head six might indeed have had lower maintenance needs. By that year both cars' automatics had automatic shifting between low and high. The 1952 Chev. with powerglide may have functioned as a one speed in Drive with an "emergency low gear" that had to be manually selected. Habitual use of it to do "jackrabbit starts" would cause premature need for a transmission rebuild.
The Plymouth's V8 engine,if the same as Dodge's "polysphere" engine indeed would have been a good feature,I think that might have been the first year that any Plymouth offered a V8 option.
You are correct for the most part, but the Powerflite was better than the Chevy Powerglide, enough so that a Powerflite Plymouth 6 would indeed out run a Powerglide Chevy 6 (by a little), but with stick shift, it was Chevy hands down. The 55 Plymouth V8 was a Dodge 241 with Polyspheric, instead of HEMI, heads, with a 260 option. The 56 had a 270 early on, which was a Poly version of the 55 Dodge 270, then later the 56 Plymouth had a new 277 engine. The early Chevy Powerglide operated just like the Buick Dynaflow, and was a scaled down version of it, always in High, unless you put it in Lo. If you wanted to use it that way, you were smart to lift off the gas when shifting to Drive, or else you would soon wear out the High clutch. Ditto with Dynaflow
Okay I have a Dodge and I like Dodges but that thing is ugly compared to a Chevrolet.
Beauty and the eye of the beholder :) I wouldn't call the Plymouth ugly at all. A 56 Fury is amazing.
@@autochronicles8667 That 56 Fury, when equipped with dual quads, was one hot car that year. And a beauty as well!
Maybe you just don't like old cars
Not that the Plymouth was a bad car- it was very modern looking for the time as opposed to the stodgy models that came before. But the clear winner for 55 by far was the chevy- many millions more were made, sold, and sought after, even today. Chevy essentially still makes the same engine,the small block, even today in crate engine form, although much different from the original 265. How many Plymouths are around today from that year? Not many. Most eaten by rust by the mid 60s. How long did Plymouth keep making the Hy-fire 277? Not long....
The 55 had either a 241 or a 260. The 56 had a 270 or a 277. It begat the 301 and the 318 for 57.
But the was a poly 318, not THE 318, which came out later.
@@seed_drill7135 I realize that, but they used the same rotating assembly.
And gM still has "pushrods " what a creepy manufacturer, how about those Silverados with the lame frame and can't pass a crash test if it tried
@@bradzimmerman3171 There is nothing wrong with pushrods. The heads are much cheaper, the timing chain is much shorter, which means less stretch and no need for all those guides that are made now of plastic and break up. In fact, with air-cooled engines, OHC is bad, as there is no way to properly fin the heads. With push rods, or even more so a flathead, that is no problem. The Chevy Silverado and it's GMC clone are among the safest vehicles on the road in all three areas - frontal crashes, side crashes, and roll-overs, all with a body bolted to a separate frame, and that is the 1/2 tons, the lightest duty versions. The 3/4 tons and the 1 tonners, which have thicker-gauge frames, are probably even better. And no, I do not own a late model. My GMC is a 73.
1955 CHEVROLETS AND FORDS TURNED OUT TO BE THE FAR BETTER CARS AND OUTSOLD AND OUTLASTED THE THE PLYMOUTHS ! NOT AN OPINION, JUST HISTORICAL FACTS !
I think you are confusing historical opinions with facts. Though they outsold Plymouth, most of all of them ended up in the junkyard six years later.
The 55 Chevy was a very good car, and it was pretty rust resistant. Maybe not as much so as the pre 52 Chrysler products, but still very good in that respect. The 55 Ford was a beauty, but I don't think it was as rust resistant as the Chevy. Plus, if the center cam shaft bearing was not properly installed, you would not get oil to both rocker shafts. One or both would be dry. Not really hard to fix, but requires quite a bit of disassembly.
@@jamesbosworth4191 All cars rusted back then depending on your climate and exposure to the elements. No such thing rust preventable treated steel back then. All that was available was ziebart rust proof coating and that was an option that most people didn't even get.
@@matrox But some rusted much more easily than some others, and yes, I realize that most people didn't order undercoating.
Plymouth was a smaller company idiot