| ||
| The Forward Look Network | ||
| ||
 Wheel bases questionJump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [50 messages per page] | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Forward Look NON-Technical Discussions -> 1955-1961 Forward Look MoPar General Discussion | Message format |
drosera88 |
| ||
Expert Posts: 1267    Location: San Antonio TX | What was the reason for having the different length wheelbases on Chryslers after 1958? Was it to make more room in the engine compartment and cabin? Was it to reduce the cost of production? To me it seems like the the difference of just a few inches is negligible and wouldn't really make a huge difference in price or usable space inside the car. It doesn't seem like it'd make much difference to customers either because the size difference is nearly indistinguishable. | ||
| |||
| Viper Guy |
| ||
Expert Posts: 2002  Location: Branson, MO | Only the Windsor sedans, hardtops, and convertibles had the shorter 122" WB because they were built at the Dodge plant on a Dodge chassis. The DeSotos fell into the same category with the Firesweep line. I'm sure cost was the main reason in order to be more competitive with other value priced lines from competitors such as Mercury, Oldsmobile, and possibly Buick. | ||
| |||
| Doctor DeSoto |
| ||
  Location: Parts Unknown | All WB difference on Chryslers (and DeSotos) after intro of the SWB cars in 1957 (DeSoto) was in the nose clip. The bodies were entirely the same across the board. What the motivation was, was to slap a Chrysler/DeSoto body on a Dodge chassis and pass it off as a low priced version of a Chrysler or DeSoto and expand each division's price range downward into Dodge's price bracket. | ||
| |||
| drosera88 |
| ||
Expert Posts: 1267 Location: San Antonio TX | So basically what you are both saying is that the savings aren't from using less materials, but are from being able to produce Desotos and Chryslers on the same assembly line as the Dodges and Plymouths. Right? | ||
| |||
| Viper Guy |
| ||
Expert Posts: 2002 Location: Branson, MO | drosera88 - 2016-08-20 3:40 AM So basically what you are both saying is that the savings aren't from using less materials, but are from being able to produce Desotos and Chryslers on the same assembly line as the Dodges and Plymouths. Right? Not necessarily. There are lesser materials like the shorter frame, hood, and fenders. But there were also smaller engines, wheels/tires, less standard equipment, etc., to name a few. | ||
| |||
| StillOutThere |
| ||
Location: Under the X in Texas | The longer the wheelbase, the more luxurious the ride. That was always true in the automotive industry and had previously been true of horse drawn carriages and conestoga wagons. So the factories, all manufacturers, placed their top line models on longer wheelbases. Three or four inches of wheelbase in a car can and does make a difference that can be felt inside the car. When that extra length gets into limousine proportions, the occupants all know that the extra cost bought something that approached the experience of kings and presidents. | ||
| |||
| mikes2nd |
| ||
Expert 5K+ Posts: 5006 | drosera88 - 2016-08-20 4:40 AM So basically what you are both saying is that the savings aren't from using less materials, but are from being able to produce Desotos and Chryslers on the same assembly line as the Dodges and Plymouths. Right? they wanted to kill the Desoto plant... didnt make sense to run a totally separate plant just for Desoto... And they were moving to unibody. They must have been thinking about merging the Desoto into the regular plant lines in order to save costs. Even back in 58-59 they could make this observation. they killed off the Desoto plant in 1960 Even though they had converted their cars to 122 wheelbase by then... it was too late for Desoto and chyrsler was moving to all unibody. http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2011/05/a-very-belated-obituary-for-desoto/
| ||
| |||
| Ray |
| ||
Expert Posts: 1497 Location: Fairfax, Minnesota | I guess this explains why New Yorker and the 300 were not built in Canada???? | ||
| |||
| miquelonbrad |
| ||
Expert Posts: 1737 Location: Hay Lakes, Alberta, Canada | No...we did produce the "Windsor" here, which was almost identical to the Saratoga. But it didn't make sense to produce two more car models here, with different engines, interiors, etc...for only a few hundred sales at most. It made more sense to just import them. | ||
| |||
| firedome |
| ||
Expert Posts: 3155 Location: NY & VT | Why different wheelbases? in a word: "Prestige". The longer cars were seen by the masses as bigger, better, more luxurious, even if in fact, they had no more space and sacrificed agility/drivability. Perception aside, IMO the short wheelbase cars are actually the better cars to really drive, and we've had numerous examples of both types. The reason we have cars is, or at least should be, to drive them. | ||
| |||
| Ray |
| ||
Expert Posts: 1497 Location: Fairfax, Minnesota | miquelonbrad - 2016-08-20 11:17 PM No...we did produce the "Windsor" here, which was almost identical to the Saratoga. But it didn't make sense to produce two more car models here, with different engines, interiors, etc...for only a few hundred sales at most. It made more sense to just import them. Did this depend on year of production? Everything that I have read indiates that my 1961 Canadian Windsor is the same as a US Newport. | ||
| |||
| mikes2nd |
| ||
Expert 5K+ Posts: 5006 | firedome - 2016-08-22 10:45 AM Why different wheelbases? in a word: "Prestige". The longer cars were seen by the masses as bigger, better, more luxurious, even if in fact, they had no more space and sacrificed agility/drivability. Perception aside, IMO the short wheelbase cars are actually the better cars to really drive, and we've had numerous examples of both types. The reason we have cars is, or at least should be, to drive them. that was a car salesman "pitch line"... You just wanted a longer wheel base than ford or chevy... So your sales reps can simple go "we got a longer wheelbase! so its better!"... It was in all of the marketing...
Edited by mikes2nd 2016-08-24 3:07 PM | ||
| |||
| imopar380 |
| ||
Expert 5K+ Posts: 7206 Location: Victoria, BC, on Vancouver Island, Canada | Ray - 2016-08-24 10:01 AM miquelonbrad - 2016-08-20 11:17 PM No...we did produce the "Windsor" here, which was almost identical to the Saratoga. But it didn't make sense to produce two more car models here, with different engines, interiors, etc...for only a few hundred sales at most. It made more sense to just import them. Did this depend on year of production? Everything that I have read indiates that my 1961 Canadian Windsor is the same as a US Newport. Ray, the Canadian Windsor in 57-58 only was the same as a US Saratoga, on the long wheelbase. | ||
| |||
| ToMopar |
| ||
Elite Veteran Posts: 1157 Location: D-70199 Heslach | The wheel base is depending from its frame or platform But my question is about the body which is mounted on the frame. For example 1957 two door DS/Chrysler,- are the rear part from the firewall backward on an 57 Windsor, Saratoga, NYer or 300C / 57 Firesweep, Firedome, Fireflite or Adv all the same and the "only" difference is the fron clip ? So in case you have a long wheel base frame, you can swap a windsor body with the 'correct' front clip into a 300C ?? (I know - wrong rear window, but I thinking about the quarter and doors only) | ||
| |||
| Chrycoman |
| ||
Expert Posts: 1819 Location: Vancouver, BC | Yes, on the 1957 models, all DeSotos and Chryslers shared bodies from the firewall back. There were differences for taillamps, trim, etc. The Firesweep and Windsor used Dodge doors, but the rear end and roof stampings were shared by the rest of the DeSoto and Chrysler models. And as the floor pan of the 1957 Dodge 122" wheelbase models (Coronet, Royal and Custom Royal) is the same as used on the DeSoto and Chrysler bodies, it would be possible to swap bodies. Not sure about the trunk area, though. The Dodge might have some differences in that area. You could put a 1958 Chrysler 300D body (126" wheelbase) onto a 1958 Chrysler Windsor chassis (122" wheelbase), but you would have to use the Windsor front clip as that is where the difference in wheelbase length is. And you could place a Windsor body onto a 126" frame but you would have to used a front clip from a 126" wheelbase model. So, you could take a 1957 300-C chassis, mount a Firesweep sedan body onto the chassis along with a front clip from a 1957 New Yorker. The 1957-1958 Firesweep and 1958 Windsor front clip was basically a modified Dodge unit. The 1957 Windsor used the same front clip as the Saratoga and New Yorker while the 1959 Firesweep and Windsor used a unique front clip that shared the front end styling with the larger models. DeSoto Firesweep models were built at Dodge Main (Hamtramck) and Los Angeles from 1957 to 1959. No production in Canada. DeSoto Firedome models were built at Wyoming Avenue (DeSoto) in 1957 and 1958, East Jefferson (Chrysler) in 1959 and Canada in 1958-1959. No 1957 production in Canada, but models were imported. DeSoto Fireflite and Adventurer models were built at Wyoming Avenue (DeSoto) in 1957 and 1958 and then East Jefferson in 1959. No production in Canada, but models were imported. Chrysler Windsor models were built at East Jefferson (Chrysler) and Los Angeles from 1957 to 1959, plus Canada in 1959. Chrysler Saratoga models were built at East Jefferson (Chrysler) and Los Angeles from 1957 to 1959, plus Canada in 1959. 1957-1958 Saratoga models were built in Canada but marketed as Windsor. Chrysler New Yorker models were built at East Jefferson (Chrysler) and Los Angeles from 1957 to 1959. No production in Canada, but models were imported. Chrysler 300 letter series models were built at East Jefferson (Chrysler) from 1957 to 1959. No production in Canada, but models were imported. For the DeSoto fans, the DeSoto Division had three plants - Assembly - 6000 Wyoming Avenue, Detroit - purchased from General Motors in 1934 and used for DeSoto assembly from 1937 to 1958 (model years). Building demolished in 1992. Small parts stamping - 9400 McGraw Avenue, Detroit - built in 1937 by Chrysler. Just east of Wyoming plant. Supplied small metal parts (fenders, hoods, trunk lids, etc.) to the end of the 1958 model year. Building expanded in the late 1990's and demolished about ten years ago. Engines/Bodies - 8505 West Warren Avenue - built in 1924 by Paige-Detroit. Chrysler purchased in 1947 from Graham-Paige. Built bodies from 1950 to 1958 and engines from 1952-1957. Located about half mile north-east of Wyoming plant. Most of the plant is still standing. Assembly was moved to East Jefferson for the 1959 model year. Wyoming was used for CKD export production from 1960 to 1980; McGraw produced glass windows from 1960 into the 1990's and West Warren was Imperial's assembly plant for the 1959 to 1961 model years. | ||
| |||
| ToMopar |
| ||
Elite Veteran Posts: 1157 Location: D-70199 Heslach | Thanks Bill for the VERY VALUABLE information and very detailed explanation. For me as a DeSoto Owner you wrote informations, which I didn't know yet. Additional to the body swap question which interests me for a long time. Whats about the frames itself. Are 126" wheels-base-two-door-frames interchangeable to the four-door-frame models, same question for 122" wheels base frames? Are there frame differences from 4dr bodies to wagon bodies respective are they interchangeable. | ||
| |||
| LostDeere59 |
| ||
Extreme Veteran Posts: 406 Location: Hilltown, PA | This is a question I've wondered about since I found out there are two different wheelbases for the various models. I've read thread after thread and really haven't found an answer that makes sense, and a great deal of inconsistency as well (a typical Chrysler result). I work on a product that carries 2 different wheelbase options for the high line car. 7-Series vehicles are available as a standard or "i" and a long wheelbase or "iL" version. On the iL the additional length is in the area between the B pillar and the C pillar - the rear doors are longer. This has obvious advantages for rear passenger comfort - the longer door allows easier ingress and egress, and the greater distance from the front seats makes for more rear passenger legroom, and allows the front seat occupants to maintain their comfort by not having to "scoot forward". Obviously this change requires lots of different parts - rear doors, rear door panels and trim, rear door glass, rear door seals, sills, and harnesses, different panels in the unibody structure to allow the additional length, and even different body harnesses and exterior trim to accommodate the longer body shell. However this is a popular upgrade and the iL sells in large enough numbers, and at a high enough premium, to justify the cost. Chrysler, however (and assuming I understand what I've read correctly), decided to increase the vehicle length (and wheelbase) between the firewall and the front wheels. This seems to offer very little in the way of improvement to the vehicle. Yes, it would be less costly than what BMW does, but keep in mind it isn't an effective "cost cutting" measure as some people are suggesting. Whichever configuration was "first", the second version required completely different front clips - we're talking fenders, inner fenders, hoods, side trim, body harnesses, brake lines, frames, and depending on how the engine was oriented fuel lines, transmission lines, radiator/heater hoses, A/C lines, driveshaft, and possibly the engine harness as well. Keep in mind that two versions costs twice as much - material costs are insignificant compared to engineering, tooling, and production space. That's one thing I haven't been able to figure out from my reading - what is the relative engine location between the two versions? Is the engine/transmission in the same location relative to the firewall - or is it in the same location relative to the front wheels? Or someplace in-between? In any case, by not altering the firewall there is no change in interior space - so no benefit there. It clearly isn't something that allows the "low line" cars to be built less expensively. the only real advantage is that the wheelbase in longer, and the front wheels are farther away from the passenger seating area. And while both of these will have a beneficial effect on ride quality I find it very hard to believe the difference is enough to justify the cost. The only other factor is the longer front fender and larger distance from the rear of the wheel well to the front door edge will visually make the car appear not only longer, but lower and sleeker as well. But again is it enough of a difference to justify the cost? (The change in location of the steering box would also effect the angle of the column as it exits the dash, but not appreciably, and I'm not aware of any difference in dash components to accommodate this difference) I'm curious if anyone knows the difference in the engine location. Is it in the same place over the front wheels, and therefor farther from the firewall, or is it in the same location relative to the firewall? Obviously the change wasn't made to accommodate a special engine configuration that required more space (since all engines are available in either wheelbase somewhere across the product lines). Personally I think it was entirely marketing driven, based on appearance and slight ride improvement, and some desire to differentiate high line and low line cars. Ultimately it was a poor choice from a financial standpoint - it was expensive and produced very little in the way of increased sales. But, in truth, Chrysler made many choices that fall in that category. Gregg | ||
| |||
| Powerflite |
| ||
Expert 5K+ Posts: 9649 Location: So. Cal | Chrycoman - 2017-11-29 4:59 AM Yes, on the 1957 models, all DeSotos and Chryslers shared bodies from the firewall back. There were differences for taillamps, trim, etc. The Firesweep and Windsor used Dodge doors, but the rear end and roof stampings were shared by the rest of the DeSoto and Chrysler models. .... Bill, your statement above, although not incorrect doesn't give a correct picture. Actually, all Chrysler, DeSoto, and Dodge models used the same doors from '57-'58. They are interchangeable. I'm talking about the sheet metal, not the parts that attach to them. So although it is true that the Firesweep used the Dodge door, so did the New Yorker, the Fireflite and the 300 etc. Of course this is talking about the doors on a 2door, or the base part of the front doors on a 4 door. The rear doors are different of course and each sedan used different (removeable) window frames depending on which model it was going on. Edited by Powerflite 2017-11-29 2:22 PM | ||
| |||
| Chrycoman |
| ||
Expert Posts: 1819 Location: Vancouver, BC | Gregg - Extending Bodies : Chrysler Corporation's wheelbase extensions date back to the 1930's, with front clips being longer to accept longer engines or being longer as a cheaper way to get length. In 1934 the Plymouth PE DeLuxe was on a 114" wheelbase, with the Dodge DR on a 117" wheelbase. The Dodge DR 2 and 4 door sedan extended the body 3" in the rear seat floor for the longer wheelbase. The Dodge DR coupes used the Plymouth bodies with a 3" longer hood. The first "Plodge", the 1934 Dodge DT, 114" wheelbase, used the Plymouth body with the short Dodge hood. The 1934 Airflow models all used the same basic body stampings as well as the same fenders. To get from the Airflow Six (SE and CY) 115" wheelbase to the Eight (CA) with a 123" wheelbase - 8" longer hood. From their to the Imperial Airflow Eight (128' wheelbase) take the dog leg out of the back and move the rear axle back 5". Also need to extend the rear quarter windows. From there to the Custom Imperial Airflow Eight 137½" wheelbase, extend the body 9½" moving the B pillar back, and use the coupe doors as the front doors. The Airflow was engineered to share a lot of panels and modify stampings where possible instead of using new stampings. Which is how Chrysler made money in 1934 even with the Airflow sales being so low. No, contrary to what most writers claim, Chrysler did not lose their shirt on the Airflow nor were they on the brink of bankruptcy. That is all "National Enquirer" writing. The engineers knew how to get the most of their money out of the tooling and save money. That, and the higher prices for the Airflow models. The new 1937 models had Plymouth on a 112" wheelbase and Dodge on 115". Both Plymouth and Dodge used the 23" long 6 cylinder engine and Chrysler added the 3 extra inches by moving the rear axle back 3". This was done on sedans and coupes this time. The DeSoto and Chrysler models were longer with the differences in the front hood as they both used the 25" long 6 cylinder engine. The Chrysler also used a straight eight engine and that model had a 121" wheelbase, all in the hood. And that, with a couple of exceptions, is how Chrysler handled wheelbase lengths through 1950. For 1951 the straight eight was replaced by the hemi V8 but the New Yorker and Imperial continued to the 131½" wheelbase with the long straight eight hood. The hemi was located in the same position relative to the firewall and had a big space between the radiator and engine. The New Yorker went to the shorter hood in 1953 (125½" wheelbase) and the Imperial in 1955. But the Imperial's longer wheelbase was all in the body. However, the 1955 hardtop and all 1956 sedans and hardtops had the rear axle moved back to extend the wheelbase from the Chrysler's 126" to 133". And all of that length was in the trunk. The 1965 C body had Plymouth on a 119½" wheelbase, Dodge on 121½" wheelbase and Chrysler on 123½". I am using Chrysler Engineering measurements. The rounded off numbers were the work of the marketing people. All the extra inches were added in the rear floor ahead of the rear seat. For 1967 the Imperial was put on the C body and its 126½" wheelbase was done by adding 3" ahead of the firewall. The 1967 Imperial had unique sheet metal below the belt line, but needed the extra length to go against Cadillac and Lincoln. Actually, adding inches ahead of the firewall is the cheap way to go, followed by pushing the rear axle back and adding inches to the trunk. That was how GM created the 98 out of the Super 88 in 1952, the Star Chief out of the Chieftain in 1954, and the Electra out of the LeSabre/Invicta in 1959. When you add inches to the floor, you also have to deal with adding extra inches to the doors, side panels, roof and the window glass. In 1965 Chrysler did it for the Dodge by using longer roof and rear quarter panels. The Chrysler extension was handled by using the Dodge roofs with longer rear panels. If you compare side view of the 1965-66 Dodge with the 1965-66 Chrysler you can the Chrysler's extra length in the rear. All this body extension business came about as a result of going to all-steel construction. The companies invested more money into stampings and body building equipment and thus the need to share as much as possible. Chrysler moved to all-steel in 1931-32 while GM went to all-steel construction in 1937 on the A and B bodies and the C body in 1940. Hoods were extended on six cylinder models to make room for straight eight engines. The expense of the having three bodies with little sharing hit home after WW II and the 1950 B body was the basis for the C body- extend the floor and rear door 4" and use a unique greenhouse - B body sedans were four window and C body sedans six window. Then came 1951 with the OB body for the Buick Special and Oldsmobile. In 1959 GM returned to the 1950 handling of the B and C bodies and dropped the A body (temporarily). Standard-sized Chevrolet and Pontiac models were now on the B with Oldsmobile and Buick (except the C body Electra 225). | ||
| |||
| Chrycoman |
| ||
Expert Posts: 1819 Location: Vancouver, BC | ToMopar - 2017-11-29 10:14 AM Thanks Bill for the VERY VALUABLE information and very detailed explanation. For me as a DeSoto Owner you wrote informations, which I didn't know yet. Additional to the body swap question which interests me for a long time. Whats about the frames itself. Are 126" wheels-base-two-door-frames interchangeable to the four-door-frame models, same question for 122" wheels base frames? Are there frame differences from 4dr bodies to wagon bodies respective are they interchangeable.. Chassis frames are interchangeable with a couple exceptions. Convertible frames have an "X" member to give the chassis extra rigidity to make up for the loss of the roof. Wagon frames are generally heavier duty than sedan / hardtop frames due to the loads they carry and the fact that the body is extended to the rear of the frame. Might also have problems with the length as wagons are long enough to have a third row of seats. And they're all basically the same length. Only the taillights and Dodge's fin trim differ. But you can swap a hardtop frame for a sedan frame, or the other way around, with one exception. The 1957-58 Imperial 4 door hardtops used the convertible frame instead of the sedan frame. They needed the extra rigidity of the convertible frame, apparently. One thing I found interesting. The Canadian 1957 parts catalogue has a reinforcement package to be used with all RHD chassis frames as well as cars destined for Newfoundland. Used on Plymouth, Dodge and Dodge Custom Royal models (1717 116). | ||
| |||
| imopar380 |
| ||
Expert 5K+ Posts: 7206 Location: Victoria, BC, on Vancouver Island, Canada | I would suspect that the increased wheelbase on Chrysler New Yorker models through 1961, and Saratoga through 1960 was simply a "Prestige" selling point, you pay more, you get more. When I get a chance I'm going to open the hood of my LWB 1960 Chrysler and compare the relative engine placement with a SWB 1960 Dodge Polara that Ron Wenzel owns ( Used to be my car!). It might not be till late winter or spring now. | ||
| |||
| LD3 Greg |
| ||
Expert Posts: 1906 Location: Ontario, Canada | Chrycoman - 2017-11-29 8:30 PM ToMopar - 2017-11-29 10:14 AM Thanks Bill for the VERY VALUABLE information and very detailed explanation. For me as a DeSoto Owner you wrote informations, which I didn't know yet. Additional to the body swap question which interests me for a long time. Whats about the frames itself. Are 126" wheels-base-two-door-frames interchangeable to the four-door-frame models, same question for 122" wheels base frames? Are there frame differences from 4dr bodies to wagon bodies respective are they interchangeable.. Chassis frames are interchangeable with a couple exceptions. Convertible frames have an "X" member to give the chassis extra rigidity to make up for the loss of the roof. Wagon frames are generally heavier duty than sedan / hardtop frames due to the loads they carry and the fact that the body is extended to the rear of the frame. Might also have problems with the length as wagons are long enough to have a third row of seats. And they're all basically the same length. Only the taillights and Dodge's fin trim differ. But you can swap a hardtop frame for a sedan frame, or the other way around, with one exception. The 1957-58 Imperial 4 door hardtops used the convertible frame instead of the sedan frame. They needed the extra rigidity of the convertible frame, apparently. One thing I found interesting. The Canadian 1957 parts catalogue has a reinforcement package to be used with all RHD chassis frames as well as cars destined for Newfoundland. Used on Plymouth, Dodge and Dodge Custom Royal models (1717 116). I may be able to add to this. Most 57 Dodge frames used for hard tops and sedans did not fully "box" the rear frame rails from the axle kick up to the back. Wagons did fully box both sides. Later cars seemed to have these areas boxed.I can post pics of this if anyone wants. The right and left frame rails were a mirror image of each other (obviously) with one exception. For our standard LHD there were internal "gates or gussets" welded inside the frame box in the area of the steering gear mount. The gears were mounted by through bolts through the frame box and needed these gates to prevent collapse of the "box"! They also significantly strengthened the frame in that area. For RHD this area also needed the "gates or gussets" on the right frame rail. Maybe the rough roads of Newfoundland required this RHD strength for both sides of the frame? It would be interesting to get the details of this option! Greg | ||
| |||
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [50 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
| (Delete all cookies set by this site) | |
