The 1903 Cadillac Model A and the 1903 Ford Model A have a common point of origin: with Henry Ford. How similar are the two Model As? Let’s take a look.
Through the years, historians have pondered the similarities between the 1903 Cadillac Model A and the 1903 Ford Model A. In no small part, that is due to the fact that Henry Ford had a hand in both. More than one writer has declared the two cars virtually identical except for their engines. But how similar are they? That’s worth a closer look, but first, some background:
Before the Cadillac Automobile Company came to be, it was known as the Henry Ford Company. Formed in November of 1901 with Ford as minor shareholder and chief engineer, its goal was to manufacture a $1,000 car. But by March of 1902, Ford and his major investor William H. Murphy were totally at odds, and Ford departed with the rights to his name and $900.
With a new technical leader on board, Henry M. Leland, and a new name, Cadillac, after the founder of Detroit, Murphy’s company carried on, and Cadillac had its first automobile ready in October. Meanwhile, Ford went to work on his own car and with new backing, he was doing business as the Ford Motor Company by February of 1903.
Under the supervision of Leland, Cadillac had a running prototype completed on October 17, 1902. (The similar 1904 chassis is shown above.) The frame was constructed of L-section steel with a wheelbase of 70 inches and a track width of 54.5 inches. The engine was mounted under the seat with a two-speed planetary transmission and chain drive to the rear axle. Semi-elliptic leaf springs front and rear provided the suspension, and the chassis rolled on wood 12-spoke wheels and standard 28×3 tires.
Meanwhile, Henry Ford’s Model A (pictured from underneath here) was built on a C-channel steel frame with a wheelbase of 72 inches and a track width of 55 inches. Its engine was also mounted in mid-chassis with a two-speed planetary transmission and chain drive, but here the suspension employed full-elliptic leaf springs front and rear. The wood 12-spoke wheels carried 28×3 tires. (See our feature on the 1903 Ford here.)
In general configuration the Ford and Cadillac are indeed similar, but also similar to a number of cars at the time, notably Oldsmobile. However, the two Model A chassis differ considerably in detail. To suggest they are clones is off the mark. The real question might be how much of Henry Ford’s original design was included in Leland’s Cadillac prototype, as Ford moved on and developed some different ideas for his own Model A. More than a century later, there seems to be no available answer.
Where the Cadillac and Ford differ most dramatically is in their engines. The Cadillac (above left) used Henry Leland’s one-cylinder design, which he called the Little Hercules. With a displacement of 98.2 cubic inches, it was initially rated at 9.75 hp. Ford’s engine was an opposed twin based on his success with the Sweepstakes racer. Its displacement was only slightly larger at 100.4 cubic inches with a rating of 8-10 hp.
Still, many have noted the physical resemblance between the Cadillac (below left) and the Ford. However, a number of U.S. cars of the period share that resemblance. Reportedly, at least some of the bodies for both cars were supplied by the C.R. Wilson Co., a Detroit carriage maker following standard carriage practice—years before Ford or Cadillac would give serious thought to styling. And while the two bodies look similar from middle distance, they also differ in detail. The two Model As do share this in common: Each was a resounding success, launching two automobile companies that survive to this day.
Fascinating story.
And in full circle, Henry Leland later quit Cadillac and founded Lincoln, which was bought out by Ford. So you might say Henry Leland was the father of the luxury car in the USA!
To be fair, you already had the three Ps ( Packard, Pierce-Arrow, and Peerless) andcar any number of other makes, so the idea of an American luxury brand had already been well established by the time Lincoln was on the scene, even if the individual makes haven’t survived.
Ah, that body design was a single seat fastback roadster that a rear seat unit could be attached to on the slope. I wonder if the single seat model had a trunk that was used for foot room when the rear seat unit was attached?
Yes, but the storage space under a “turtle deck” was normally filled with spare parts and tire-patching supplies in that era and for some time after.
Bruce, the rear tonneau section simply bolted on top of the rear turtledeck. There was little legroom and passengers were forced to sit sort of crosswise.
“All cars look the same these days…”