Last post on Feb 10, 2013 at 4:01 PM
You are in the Classic Cars
What is this discussion about?
Lincoln, Classic Cars, Coupe, Convertible, Truck, Sedan, Wagon
#39 of 89 Re: Why a 1949-1950 Lincoln? [toemoss71]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Oct 05, 2008 (8:29 am)
That won't be an easy car to find but I'm sure they are out there and probably reasonably priced, too. Do you know any major differences between that model and the equivalent Mercury?
#40 of 89 Re: Why a 1949-1950 Lincoln? [toemoss71] by Mr_Shiftright HOST
Oct 05, 2008 (8:46 am)
From a Google site...
"Lincoln Tries to Find Its Way: 1949-1960
The party was over. The pent-up demand for cars after W.W.II had been fairly well supplied by 1948. Up until then, any warmed-over pre-war model was quite acceptable. But the normal laws of economics dictated that once this demand had been met, the various players would actually have to compete against one another. This meant new products. Lincoln answered the challenge with an entirely new car for the 1949 model year, first offering it for sale in April, 1948.
Two models were produced. The Lincoln, with a wheelbase of 121 inches, and weighing about 4000 lbs, cost $2575 for the door. The upscale Cosmopolitan rode a wheelbase of 125 inches, weighed about 4200 lbs, and was priced at $3238 in the door style. Both cars were powered with Lincoln's all-new flathead V8 of 337ci. At 152 horsepower it was about equal to Cadillac's 160. But it was not an overhead valve engine and would only last 3 years. Initially only a 3 speed manual transmission with optional overdrive was available. Later in the year the GM Hydramatic would be an option."
From another site I found that the '49-'51 Ford V8 was 239 c.i. and put out 100 hp, while the Mercury engine from that same period displaced 255 c.i. and generated 110 hp for '49 and '50, and 112 for '51.
They can certainly sound more powerful with glasspacks.
#41 of 89 Re: Why a 1949-1950 Lincoln? [toemoss71] by Mr_Shiftright HOST [hpmctorque]
Oct 05, 2008 (9:40 am)
The Mercury was smaller and less powerful, as noted above. The "regular" Lincoln is referred by many as the "baby Lincoln" as it was the same body style as a Mercury with the Lincoln nose on it, while the Cosmo was the full-blown Lincoln.
From "Lincoln The Gold Portfolio: 1949-1960" here are the specs they give:
1949 Cosmo 4-door sedan weighed 4,527 pounds and sold for $3,238 while the most expensive and heavy was the convertible at 4,717 and $3,948. The 337 cu. in. V-8, the first V-8 in a Lincoln since 1932, was rated at 160HP, and was both the biggest engine Ford had ever built and the biggest production engine on the market. The regular Lincoln and the Mercury shared the 7-A body while the Cosmo was a different body style. The 337 cu. in. V-8 was an adapted truck motor.
If you can find this book, it goes into quite a bit of detail on the design and numerous changes for the 49-51 Lincolns, especially the Cosmo. The ISBN number is 1-85520-0163 and was printed in Hong Kong, but was distributed by Motorbooks International in Osceola, Wisconsin 54020. Inside the back cover it gives the phone number for Motorbooks International as (715)294-3345. If this doesn't work, the British side is listed for direct orders as:
Brookland Book Distribution
Seven HIlls Road, Cobham, Surrey
It's sad tha the Cosmo was dropped after only three years and is pretty much relegated to the shadows of automotive history. It is a beautiful car and in many ways a trailblazer in design.
#42 of 89 Re: Why a 1949-1950 Lincoln? [toemoss71]
Oct 05, 2008 (10:34 pm)
"It is a beautiful car and in many ways a trailblazer in design."
In which ways was the Cosmopolitan a trailblazer in design? I ask because it seems to me that the Cosmo was more or less on a par with the other '49-'51 Ford Motor Company models, and maybe less trail blazing than, say, the Cadillacs of those years. That doesn't diminish my liking of the '49-'51 Fords, Mercs and Lincolns. They were neat cars.
#43 of 89 Re: Why a 1949-1950 Lincoln? [hpmctorque]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Oct 06, 2008 (7:33 am)
I'd have to say the '49 Ford was much more of a trailblazer. The Lincoln strikes me more 40s than 50s, but the Ford had that simple, clean stand-up quality that predates the 55-56 Chevys, rather than the "blob" shape that characterizes most late 40s cars.
What makes some of those Lincolns and Mercurys so popular is how well they take to being lowered, chopped, shaved, frenched, etc.
Generally speaking a trailblazing design is not apt to be heavily modified in the body shape (as a rule), since you can't do a lot to improve it. Engines, paintwork, etc are a different thing.
#44 of 89 Re: Why a 1949-1950 Lincoln? [Mr_Shiftright]
Oct 06, 2008 (7:58 am)
I think the clean, smooth sides of the Lincolns, with their integrated rear fenders, do give them a modern look compared to a 1949 Cadillac or Chrysler/Imperial, both of which still had bolt-on rear fenders.
Still, by 1949 a lot of cars had that look. The "pregnant" Packards, Kaiser/Frazer, and Nash were doing it. Studebaker didn't quite have them integrated yet, but still had a smooth, modern looking package. And the Hudsons looked downright futuristic by 1949 standards.
The 1949-51 Mercury always stands out in my mind as being modern looking for the time too, but I think my mind is clouded by the multitudes of customized Mercs I've seen through the years. Seems like they outnumber the stock survivors enough that I sort of forget what they look like. The customized models often look futuristic and sleek, sometimes a little garish, depending on how well of a job was done. But in stock form, I don't think they really have anything on a Buick or Olds from that era. Now a 1949 DeSoto, its closest Mopar competitor, is downright old-fashioned looking in comparison.
The 1949 Ford was probably the most modern looking of the Dearborn bunch though. I think the combination of smooth, integrated rear quarters, as well as tall, almost hood-height front fenders made it look more futuristic than a 1949 Chevy or Plymouth.
#45 of 89 Re: Why a 1949-1950 Lincoln? [andre1969]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Oct 06, 2008 (8:04 am)
Most automotive stylists would agree with you I think. Good design is often not a matter of how "pretty" the car looks, or interesting, but rather how harmonious and coherent the entire design is. A car can have an attractive front end and a pleasing back end but the two clash with each other, or are not connected by the lines of the car.
But I like the Lincoln design as well. I'd call it "period attractive" for sure.
#46 of 89 Re: Why a 1949-1950 Lincoln? [hpmctorque]
Oct 06, 2008 (8:05 am)
No question that all the Ford products of 1949 were a departure from the 1948 models. Fenders were more integrated into the body, running boards disappeared, and this resulted in the "slab side" smooth look. The Cosmo, IMHO, was innovative as it used these features in addition to the largest and most powerful motor available at 160HP; Ford & Merc used the same basic flathead motor with enhancements. Because of the body changes, it also featured more interior room than previous Lincolns. The Cosmo seems to have a low & sleek profile for such a large car.
Granted without hesitation that the GM cars were using overhead valve V-8's instead of the flathead design, and this is the only true drawback I can see to the Ford/Mercury/Lincoln offerings for '49-'51.
'49 was a year of big changes for Ford in their body designs. And an interesting side note is that the '49 models for Ford were the last ones personally approved by Henry Ford himself.
#47 of 89 Re: Why a 1949-1950 Lincoln? [toemoss71]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Oct 06, 2008 (8:12 am)
Aside from the OHV engines, GM had a much better automatic transmission as well, (starting in 1941!) and pioneered the 2-door hardtop design. I'd say that in '49 at least GM had quite a good edge on Ford. Also one-upped them with the '53 Corvette
'55 was a good year for Ford-GM head to head competition IMO. After that, GM slapped Ford silly until the Mustang. Maybe not in sales, but in design, quality, etc, no doubt in my mind at least.
#48 of 89 Re: Why a 1949-1950 Lincoln? (Mr_Shiftright)
Oct 06, 2008 (3:17 pm)
"...GM had a much better automatic transmission as well..."
Lincoln used GM's 4-speed Hydra-Matic, an excellent transmission, in its '50-'54 models. Buick introduced Dynaflow in 1948 (ultra smooth but very inefficient in terms of gobbling power and poor gas economy), and Chevy made its Powerglide available in its '51 model.
Ford Motor Co. introduced Fordomatic and Mercomatic (the same torque converter 3-speed design), but I think Lincoln first adopted this (Lincomatic?) transmission for its '55 model. The Ford automatics were okay - more efficient than Dynaflow and Powerglide, although less rugged, and definitely neither as rugged nor efficient as Hydramatic, but smoother. You definitely felt the shifts with the old Hydramatics, kind of like the old Benz automatics.