In Motion CC: 1962 Cadillac Sedan DeVille – Sucks More Fuel Than Three Prii, But Does It In Style
– November 8, 2015
This is actually the last of three shots in a sequence of a '62 Cadillac pulling away from a curbside mailbox in Corvallis the other day. But only in looking at it now did I realize that it's accelerating (quite briskly, with very noticeable and pleasurable sound) in front of three Prii, parked in front of a bicycle shop, no less. Oregon is a perpetual study in contrasts.
Here's the first shot. We were walking back to our car, disappointed that I missed a shot of a very ratty Datsun B-210 hatchback chugging down the street earlier. And then this beautiful Caddy pulled over, to allow its youngish driver to make a mail deposit. By the time I fumbled out my phone and got the camera awake, it was pulling away.
He looked over his shoulder to make sure he was cleared for take-off, and gave the spurs to its 390 cubic inch V8. Although the 390 was not as big as the engines in the Lincoln (430) and Imperial (413), it was lighter than either of them, and its four-speed Hydramatic was more efficient, with a very low first gear for a quick getaway. The '63 Cadillac was undoubtedly the fuel economy champ of the luxury car class.
Needless to say, it makes quite a contrast to the rest of the cars on the street.
Here's that same last shot, un-cropped. There's something about seeing a Cadillac of this vintage on the go that never fails to create a visceral response. Suddenly I'm nine years old again; or nineteen; or twenty nine; or thirty nine; or forty nine; or fifty nine; or…
James Slick
Posted November 8, 2015 at 10:25 AM
Beautiful, particularly in 4 window form. PS Not to nitpick but of all the Chrysler line, Imperial remained B.O.F. up to M.Y. 1966.
Of course….Caffeine hasn't kicked in yet.
Posted November 8, 2015 at 1:01 PM
No Prob, I'm just a huge fan of the 57-66 Imp, (although I'm a Buick/Cadillac guy!) The early sixties were great as all three luxury lines were so utterly different from each other, Would have loved to have been a man of means in that era just to try all three when new.
Car Nut Seattle
This is the best looking Cadillac until 1964.
Jon "Vee" Hanson
It's amazing how different Cadillac and Lincoln flagships were back in the day. While the Continental was sharp edges and a razor front, the De Ville is bumps and creases and bulges and points. It's like comparing an older gentleman wearing a mink fur coat and plenty of rings versus the staid young man in the navy blue suit and black tie to his left.
THE THREE PRIUS THERE LIKE A NEW WASHING MACHIEN OR MICROWAVE OR A HOOVER ANY OLD GENERIC WHITE GOODS ….NEXT…..BUT LOOK AT THAT CADDILAC,JUST THE FACT THAT ITS STILL HERE,THE HISTORY ,THE ROMANCE ,THE STYLE ,A REMINDER OF A FORGOTTEN AMERICA THAT CADDILAC BRINGS UP FEELINGS ,MEMORIES,EMOTIONS THING THE GENERIC PRIUS WILL NEVER DO
Please; no all caps comments. It's like shouting; we can hear you without resorting to that.
In fact, I (and many other folks) refuse to read all-caps comments.
It's harder to read, too. Too hard for older eyes.
suzulight
+1 I do not like being shouted at myself, even with the volume off. Turn them all over to Archie Bunker.
Paul, what you need is a script which counts the number of uppercase characters out of all characters in a post, & lowercases (or autocorrects) the whole thing if a threshold is exceeded.
I can never come over the mental image of the skeg fins making the '62 look like it's growing sideburns….
tbm3fan
As for me they remind me of this
That's the F8 Crusader, easily confused for its descendant, the A7 Corsair II, which had a very different role.
Unlike original F4H Phantoms, it still had guns, which was why it was called "The Last Gunfighter," having the best kill record against MiGs in Vietnam. The French Aéronavale used it until the Rafale became operational, since it fit their smaller carriers.
True, and it has skegs (ventral fins) which were added when it was found that the plane displayed instability when launching from a carrier deck. Early on it was known as the "Ensign killer". Very few left anywhere today.
There used to be two at the USS Yorktown, one displayed on the deck and another in poor condition (parts source maybe?) parked on land near their small Vietnam exhibit with the Huey.
This was in 1992 or so, mind you, so it all may be different now. Cool planes though.
I heard a story about when a GD suit was shown a model of the prototype F-16, he disliked its ventral fins & broke them off!
Retro-stang Rick
Comments all suitable for "Tarmac Classic" ;o)
My Dad's '60 Dodge Seneca looked like it was sporting rocket engines in the back.
I guess that car could be called a "Launchpad Classic"… lol
Ate Up With Motor
Didn't a bunch of them end up in service in the Philippines after the Navy retired them? My recollection is that the F-8s in the movie Thirteen Days — the ones that weren't CGI — were Philippine.
Johannes Dutch
Wonderful. I recognized the model immediately, the organizer of a yearly high-quality classic US car show here has one too.
Source and more: http://www.cadillac1962.nl/?page_id=342
browntabby
Is that a deVille or a shorter deck Park Avenue?
Gene Herman
It's a DeVille. Doesn't look like the shorter deck Park Avenue to me.
Scott A. Tucker
Nice to see these finned cruisers in the wild and in use. Love the styling with the four fins…guess that is why I recently traded a G-body Monte Carlo for this '62 convertible project.
CA Guy
The first year for corning lights! A great feature that is missed.
As much as I love the Lincoln-Continental of these years, it was a thrill when the 1961 Cadillac was introduced, streamlining and modernizing the ungainly 1959-1960 (think 1976 vs 1977 Caprice). The little styling refinements for 1962 make it the best of this series. 1962 was a very good year for the US luxury nameplates. Even the Imperial was much improved through the removal of the enormous fins and substituting the sleek jet tube taillights for the microphone-style lights.
Seeing this CC in black with proper narrow white walls and in motion made my day.
A thoroughly gorgeous car. The irony of catching it in front of three Prii AND a bicycle shop is too sweet.
haroldingpatrick
Goodness, I do love a 1962 Cadillac in dark colors.
As I get older, cars from the 1930's and early/mid 1960's look the most beautiful to me – one could argue they were the high points of the American automobile.
I agree entirely. All you have to do is compare the look of ANY American car maker's 1930 model with their 1939 offering to see how dramatic the evolution of style was in that economically blighted decade.
And the 1961 to 1966 Caddies were in a class by themselves.
Posted November 10, 2015 at 7:12 AM
The automobile was still a relatively young technology in 1930. Rapid styling evolution in that decade was due to advances in metal production techniques as well as art and tastes. Of course, the Chrysler Airflow products got too far ahead of the curve.
The 1960's were all about style, since real engineering advances in the by then mature industry were few.
While the Continental of that era is one of my all time styling favorites, I've developed an appreciation for the relative "light" look of the 1961 GM big cars. The Caddy is still way too busy looking, but vastly better than the bloated '59-'60.
occam24
Even the mailbox now belongs to the Prii and SUVs. Broad, square, malformed, and way too high for a '60s driver to reach.
Lovely! The opposite of my grandfather's white one. The 4 window 62 Cad is a favorite of mine.
Would take the Caddy over 15 Prii, even if they were duct taped together,and drop shipped into my front yard. Are you listening, Toyota?
Steve Lehrer
Always have love Caddy's of that era. Not to say that Lincolns and Imperials of the same time weren't magnificent as well. Younger people can call them things like "luxo barges", "land yachts", and "dinosaurs", all they like. To people such as us, say 50+, they are something truly special! These cars had a true Identity. They had style, elegance, and presence all at once. I know that a modern Cadillac CTS-V, can literally run ring around this Caddy. True, it's safer, far more efficient, has lightening acceleration, has handling and braking that could not even be dreamed of in a race car of the era, and of course a slew of electronic toys that were not even thought of 10 years ago, let alone in 1962! All of that being said, there is much to be said for the many attributes of these magnificent expressions of design and engineering! Truly, much can be said for a vehicle that is huge and glittering with chrome, has people step aside, simply for it's imposing size and presence, not to mention the luxury of a silky smooth ride, as if floating down the highway! These cars offered something that no other cars south of a Rolls or Bentley can offer, that something, is respect! In those days, when you drove a Caddy, you had arrived! It exuded taste and class! A Caddy, was "The Cadillac of….." cars! I must correct you on one discrepancy however! These Caddy's, along with the Lincoln's, Imperial's, and even the Buick Electra's of the day, did not "suck up more fuel then 3 prii"! Considering the 6-8 MPG these cars averaged in city driving, and the 52 MPG Prii's manage in city driving, these cars actually sucked up more then 6-8 Prii's in city driving! Even on the highway, they were good for about 10 MPG, and a Prius will get what, 48 or so MPG? That is darn close to 5 "Prii", even on the highway! But, again, the youth of today, does not realize how different things were! At about 29.9 for "High Test" (the name of Premium at the time), and oil that seemed like it would flow freely forever, and no know environmental concerns (by "no Known", I am referring to John Q Public), not gave a hoot about MPG of :fuel economy! Please, please, don't adjust the price of gas for inflation! These were Cadillac owners…..Even if it was equal to $ buck a gallon in todays dollar, Cadillac buyers were not concerned with such matter Just as the buyer of a modern Mercedes S65 Sedan with the 6.0 twin turbo V12, does not care about getting what 12, maybe 14 MPG? They will by then if gas was 8 dollars per gallon. Today a car is special if it has acceleration, handling and braking capabilities that the average owner will never use. Back in the day, a car was special because it was big, beautiful, bodacious, and belied logic! You bought a Cadillac back in the day, because just as your parent told you to do….You worked hard, studied hard, moved up in the firm, spent wisely, and now, now you have arrived! Now you buy yourself a Cadillac!!!
On the highway the 390 Cadillacs should have managed something close to 14 MPG at reasonable speeds (around 60 MPH).
Posted November 9, 2015 at 8:27 AM
The headline is still correct. It does say more than three Prii.
And in your defense Paul, the guy needs to look at the picture… there are 3 Prii… I think that was the whole point. ;o)
You are all correct, I miss read the precise syntax of his statement! I would hope you are all in agreement with my other major point. That younger people, who grew up on Honda Civic's, Toyota Corolla's, and Nissan Sentra's, simply cannot appreciate the intrinsic and emotional value of a vehicle such as that '62 Caddy! In fact, even if they grew up riding in modern Cadillac's, such as the last few generations of CTS', again, they just can't appreciate a long, wide, low, silky smooth riding, traditional, American, luxury vehicle! Sad, but true!
See, I don't know if that's true. Maybe the appeal isn't as broad or as obvious as it once was, but at the same time, not having grown up with this sort of car does not necessarily preclude having an emotional response to the car. I was born in '80 (so I am no longer a "younger person" but I refuse to classify myself as old yet either) and by my childhood, the vast majority of 50's and 60's cars were gone from the streets. Yet from a very young age I was drawn to them. To a child of today, they're even more foreign, but that still doesn't mean the "spark" won't be there when they see one.
In fact, to a 25 year old who has rarely if ever seen anything like this car on the road, the emotional response may be even stronger than to a 45 year old for whom the prototypical '62 Caddy of his youth would have been a beat up junker on its last legs in the late 70's.
I drove my Grandmother 1950 Buick Special for a few years to high school and then college. Then a 63 Impala the last couple of years of college. The smooth ride is a combination of balloon tires (compared to today's tires) and shocks that are probably due for replacement.
I am not at all sure how the first two generations of the CTS were for ride, but my third generation (2014) with mag shocks and 19 inch wheels rides quite smoothly (compared to a 2015 Dodge Dart rental I had recently).
Benjamin Cat
Posted September 7, 2017 at 5:39 AM
Does a 1988 Chevy suburban count?
Don W.
Simply the finest Cadillac design ever, it has always been my favorite. A pleasure to see it underway and well cared for.
in the day of that Cadillac, designers had the say,and engineers had to make it work…since the heavy hand of the government descended upon our cars, the engineers have to create to meet the standard, and the designers have to clothe it afterwards.
Not to burst anyone's bubble, but design has always had to defer to engineering to at least some extent. Styling at GM had more autonomy than at most other automakers, in part because GM had elevated the head of styling to a VP-level position back in 1940 and in part because GM divisions had the sales volume and the money to try things that the engineers at most other companies would have vetoed as impractical. Of course, even in more recent years, automakers have occasionally allowed a particular design to go forward with elements that engineering had said couldn't be done, but that's always been more the exception than the rule.
Virgil Exner Sr. once wrote an amusing essay about the progression of a cool original design into its watered-down production incarnation; I don't recall what year that was written, but it was certainly well before the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
dman63
A beautiful, well-made classic that shows everyone else how it's done with style and class. A Cadillac of that era says it all.
When this dignified, stately old beauty glides up to the mailbox, all the Prii run to the curb and hide their faces in shame.
PBR Longneck
Growing up, my family was as far from the Cadillac crowd as could be. However there were a few occasions when I did get to ride in one from this Era. As a young child of 6-7 years old I could tell that these cars were very special. The quality of upholstery, the complete isolation of road noise and bumps and just the sheer presence of these cars was memorable to me at such a young age. These weren't about technowiz b.s., it was ALL about the ride. It was a very fine ride at that. There was a level of luxury in these that is just lost to time.
Ok so something that puzzles me, and I'm sure Paul or another Curbsider can explain to me: why were Hydramatics four-speed autos up until the 60s, and then replaced with three-speed units? Were there many four-speed autos around that time?
The hydramatic used a fluid coupling instead of a torque converter. This required a lower first gear ratio to get good off the line performance. So the transmission had 3 planetary gears, making the transmission quite heavy. The turbohydramatic was a Simpson gear set design, which reduces the planetary gears to about 1 and a half.
What I do not understand is why they did not redesign it in the mid 50's to use all three planetary gears for first. The third planetary gear was for reverse only (I think). First gear combined a 2.5:1 (about) gear with a 1.5:1 (about) to get 3.75:1. Then the 1.5 is upshifted, which is all well and good. But to get third gear, both gears have to shift together, which did not always work quite precisely. A second fluid coupling was added in the mid 50's to smooth shifts.
A side note, Buick clearly was not concerned about performance with the dynaflow, which had about 2.25:1 in drive. The twin turbine did get up to 3.5:1.
There were several different ratio sets for the original single-coupling Hydra-Matic, but the dual-coupling version in this car had a 1.55 ratio for the first gear set and 2.55 for the second, compounded to give 3.96:1 in first. The third planetary gearset was only for reverse. (The original idea was that the reverse planetary would also serve to recombine the torque split in the top two gears, but the original production transmission did that with the second planetary instead.)
They could certainly have gotten more gears out of the three-planetary layout, but I don't think anyone saw the need at least as far as passenger cars went. Also, the fluid coupling Hydra-Matic had enough trouble coordinating shifts with two planetary gearsets; trying to juggle three would have been even more complex, and complexity is not something Hydra-Matic needed more of!
My thinking was to have 3 identical planetary gears designed for a 1.4:1 forward ratio. One could have been set up to do reverse. This would have produced about 2.75:1 in low gear. A torque converter would have been needed instead of a fluid coupling. Then only one planetary gear needs to shift either up or down. Or a 1.5:1 and two 1.6:1 planets could be used with a fluid coupling for a 3.84:1 low.
For such a narrow ratio spread, I can't see why they would want to use three planetary gearsets rather than going to two plus a torque converter, which is what they eventually did — lighter and a lot cheaper that way, especially with a Simpson gearset. (A Turbo Hydra-Matic 400 was something like two-thirds the weight of the last four-speed Hydra-Matic, so you can see the advantage there.)
They DID, however, come up with a sort of hybrid of Hydra-Matic and Twin Turbine Dynaflow, with three planetary gearsets and a torque converter, although it was never actually produced. U.S. Patent No. 2,981,124, if you're curious.
The one advantage would have been to keep the torque split making the transmission more fuel efficient. Also, the third gear could also have been an overdrive (.7:1) and still use the torque split. This gear would have been between the engine and torque converter so the torque converter still runs at driveshaft speed.
This design would have been expensive to build, and way ahead of its time or usefulness. A 5 speed transmission (with overdrive) would have allowed GM to keep engine size smaller, but that was not where the market was going. This transmission would have been very useful in the mid 70's to reduce fuel consumption and still keep performance up. The three speed Simpson transmissions were dead ends unless another overdrive gear set was added.
Posted November 10, 2015 at 10:03 AM
I did look up the patent. It is rather technical.
What I understand about the hydramatic is that it was developed from the so called safety transmission. I suspect that they refined the design to the point where they had something to put into production, whereupon refinement stopped. The basic problem with the hydramatic was the 2-3 and 3-2 shift. My thinking is that they might have done more refinements on the design and could have used all 3 gears for first.
One other point to make, GM was several years behind Chrysler in going to the Simpson gear set. They do not make any refinements to the turbohydramatic once it is in production. They could have added an overdrive planetary gear between the engine and torque converter at some point. This could have been done by the end of the 60's reducing the need for 450 CID engines. An overdrive transmission was really needed for the down sized 77 models.
Granted that it is easy to look back and see how things might have been done differently, but looking forward from the 60's to see what might be needed for the 70's is a different matter.
Posted November 11, 2015 at 8:50 PM
The main attraction of the Simpson gearset (so-called — Simpson filed many different transmission-related patents, as for that matter did Pol Ravigneaux) was that it was simpler, potentially lighter and more compact, and a bunch cheaper to build. In that sense, it certainly wasn't a dead end and it was obviously very widely used.
Getting more gears was really not a priority until many years later. If you asked most any U.S. auto engineer of the '50s or '60s, they would have hold you that no American car really needed more than four forward speeds and that with a torque converter two was adequate and three was plenty. There was also the assumption that direct drive was preferable for cruising because indirect gearing (whether overdrive or reduction) meant more noise and more friction. British and Italian engineers felt differently, in part because they generally had to make do with smaller engines and less torque, but the U.S. didn't see the need to go that way until the late '70s.
The early production Hydra-Matic actually differs quite a bit from the Automatic Safety Transmission. There are some commonalities, like the way the first two planetary gearsets are compounded to create the forward speeds, but many things are different. (Of course, the Automatic Safety Transmission didn't do the 2-3 shift automatically, so it didn't have to deal with that particular issue.)
I think one of the big problems for GM in this area was that a lot of this stuff was heavily patent-encumbered; I can see a couple of straightforward ways they could have simplified the operation of Hydra-Matic, but those ways were probably also covered by unexpired outside patents. For a company the size of most GM divisions in those days, deciding whether to license an outside technology is a tricky financial question because you have to weigh whether the benefits are worth having to pay a per-unit royalty on production volumes measured in the hundreds of thousands.
My comment on the Simpson gear set being a dead end meant that it was a basic 3 speed design. I don't think that it allows for an overdrive without adding another planetary gear. The advantage was low cost, meaning it could be made quite robust at little additional cost.
I do know GM's theory in the 60's was that a larger engine would allow an axle ratio gearing that was higher (lower numerically) and the engine, running slower would burn less fuel. But the basic problem was that the torque converter would slip more, burning up the fuel savings. The hydramatic's torque bypass design would have made this idea more workable.
What is interesting is that my 2002 Seville (LS) would cruise @70 MPH with the engine running @2000 RPMs. My CTS will also cruise 70 MPH @2000 RPMs (approximately for both cars). Fuel consumption is about the same I think, perhaps less for the CTS (which is rated at 320 HP).
How many gears you can get out of a single planetary gearset depends on how the elements are interconnected. Simpson once patented a design (although I don't know if it was ever built) for a two-planetary transmission with a total of 12 speeds, if that tells you anything.
The easiest way to eliminate coupling/converter slippage at cruising speed is with a lockup clutch, which of course most automakers eventually adopted. They could have done so much earlier if they'd been so inclined — lockup clutches for torque converters had been used on bus transmissions since the mid-30s and are probably a cheaper way to go than Hydra-Matic's torque split. Again, I suspect patent encumbrance was a factor.
For a typical planetary gear, there are two lower gear ratios, two overdrive gear ratios and two reverse ratios. I am not sure that all are useful.
I think that my 76 Riviera had a lock up torque converter clutch, but I am not sure. That was too long ago and too many cars ago. I do know that the 76 had a 2.56:1 axle ratio and did get somewhat better fuel mileage, but speed limits were 55 around that time.
Not really. The old Chrysler semiautomatic was four speeds, although people didn't usually bother using all four. Mercedes-Benz introduced their four-speed fluid coupling automatic in 1961, but other than the fluid coupling Hydra-Matic — already on its way out by 1962 — the norm was two or three speeds plus torque converter.
The hydramatic used in Holdens in 62 on the FB had four speeds but the engine only put out 75hp and a very low first speed was needed same with the EJ model which had the same 75hp motor
When the EH update was done in late 63 automatic transmission was restricted to the 115hp red six only and the first gear of the hydramatic was deleted, that was the final year for hydramatics at both Holdens and Vauxhall both switching to 2 speed powerglides from then until the THM 180 was introduced.
As far as I've ever seen, the only early Hydra-Matic used by Holden was the Roto Hydra-Matic, which was introduced as an option on the EK. The four-speed dual-coupling unit was enormous and very heavy, so it would have been a tough squeeze in a Holden of that vintage.
The Roto Hydra-Matic is sometimes incorrectly described as a four-speed transmission, but it's actually a three-speed transmission. When people make that mistake, the "first gear" ratio they list — 3.64:1 — is actually first gear times the converter stall ratio. The error is not necessarily obvious because the torque converter multiplication for the Roto Hydra-Matic was so low. (Most '60s automotive torque converters were in the realm of 2.0 to 2.5:1.)
-Nate
Lovely Automobile ! .
I've always loved Hydromatics , even when coupled to 235 C.I. InLine six cylinder engines .
Yes compared to the Prius Trio, the Caddy looks like it arrived from another planet in terms of style and presence . however I am sure that back in '62 the Caddy pictured here was looked upon as being outdated compared to the Lincoln Continental. To me the 62 Caddy and the 1962 Continental are night and day in comparison. The '62 Caddy looks like it is right out of 1956 but the Continental looks modern. In fact the Lincoln looks like it would look current if it was sold brand new in 1975.
gottacook
One reason for looking old-fashioned was that Cadillac continued with flat side-window glass all the way through 1964; by then Lincoln had used curved glass for three years (then reverted to flat for 1964-65, although none of the supposed reasons I've seen for Ford doing so are convincing) and, of course, Imperial had used curved glass starting in 1957.
"however I am sure that back in '62 the Caddy pictured here was looked upon as being outdated compared to the Lincoln Continental"
You raise an interesting point, but Cadillac had so much momentum as "the" luxury car that it outsold Lincoln about 3 to 1 in those days, even if it had looks that would have worked in 1957. And, Cadillac continued with this basic design through 1964, which is almost amazing when you look back now.
If you offered me a '62 Cadillac or a '62 Lincoln, I'd probably take the Caddy.
Roger Carr
It's enough to make me start buying stamps and writing letters again….
Phil b
I read somewhere that Datsun B210s had cardboard interior panels. Is that true? The `62 Caddy? Now that's the bomb!
Not true; mostly. The panels that went over the doors back then were commonly some kind of hardboard, which is not the same as cardboard. Typically, it was covered with padded vinyl. In cheap cars, little or no padding.
I do know that the US-spec 1975 VW Rabbit base model had just the hardboard door panels, painted, but not vinyl-covered. This was an ultra-stripper model in order to get the MSRP down to $2999. A friend of mine bought one, so I remember those panels well.
But that was a one-year thing only, as the dollar was losing value, and there was no way VW could sell a Rabbit for less than $3000 in 1976, so they stopped trying.
It's possible that the lowest-trim Datsun B210 Honey Bee had similar painted hardboard panels, but I'minclined to think they were covered with some thin vinyl.
FWIW, the painted hardboard panels on that Rabbit weren't all that bad; sort of a modern-minimalist style.
The front finned drum non power brakes those strippers came with barely worked.
"US-spec 1975 VW Rabbit base model…an ultra-stripper model in order to get the MSRP down to $2999."
There was also a similar Beetle model, offered in 1975 only:
http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=433042
Jon in Texas
I am continually surprised at how small and delicate these 60s models look in comparison to the newer cars. These cars used to seem so big, I ran across a 66 or so Imperial a couple of months ago that seemed much smaller than I remembered / Longer, lower, wider to be sure.. (My wife or I took a picture so I hope I can dig it up)
Drzhivago138
They certainly are long, which contributes the most to outward perceptions of hugeness, and wide (around 78″), which contributes the most to interior perceptions of hugeness. The delicacy that you see can be attributed to the thinness (or nonexistence, in the case of hardtops) of the pillars, compared to today when pillars truly are pillars.
ArBee
Lawdy Miss Clawdy, I do love these early Sixties luxury cars. The 1961-62 Cadillacs exemplified General Motors at its swaggering peak, and you have to love them for that alone. This car is just perfect, and your photos capture its attitude perfectly.
Beautiful Cadillac, especially with the gleaming black paint. And those double fins are the apogee of Jet Age/Space Age style.
As relates to today's cars–it's not so much that they don't make cars like this anymore as that they're no longer attainable. Love or hate the styling, a current Rolls Royce Phantom is as true a luxury car as has ever been built. But the $300K+ price tag means it's only the province of the ultra-rich. Cars like this Caddy made a very large percentage of that luxury, that presence, that class and style, affordable to the moderately well off, the upper middle class (a bracket which no longer exists). That doesn't happen anymore–we're all forced to accept compromises ostensibly for our own good. But it's the modern world. We can't eat like we used to, we can't drink like we used to, we can't behave like we used to. Whether it's paying for our fathers' sins or just the tradeoff for expanding the breadth of our knowlege, the rules have changed. Which makes it all the more appealing to see these reminders of when excess wasn't evil.
I think that the Cadillac CT6 will be a modern de Ville sedan. At least it will be a bit larger than the current CTS, which is more or less the replacement for the STS. The inflation index puts the 62 price level at $50,000 or so. A CT6 is around $60,000.
Cadillac meets 3 Prii, at age 45 …..
Sniffing around one another, each checking out the other …..
Like the 'Dog Meets Cat' vids …..
Lovely shots–grace and power, as Cadillac once embodied. For those who really know the models and years, I have a question. Was there a 1961 equivalent of this exact car, including the thick C-pillar? I have vivid memories of my grandmother's Cadillac–black, like this, differing from the '62 in having circular taillights and front signals, slight differences in side character lines, and a grille that wasn't flat. The '61 Fleetwood looks most similar to what I remember, but my grandmother's had no wood, and had black-and-white cloth seats, no leather, no curve down at rear roofline above window. I feel certain I remember the circular interior lights in the C-pillar. Yet I have never, ever found an image of such a car online. I don't recall any "deVille" badging, so could it have been a "Park Avenue" or "Town Sedan" (shorter wheelbase)?
I wish I had photos to upload, rather than 40+ year-old memories.
Jose Delgadillo
The 1960 model was a variation of the 1959 body. It was simpler in design with the tall fin with integral tail lamp. The 1961design was a complete change, the windshield and roof design was totally different. There was a skeg fin and the tail lamps were in the fin but above the rear bumper there was an oval horizontal housing which held a circular tail lamp ,and a separate circular back up light. The roofs on the Deville coupe was very airy, with thin pillars. The four door Deville had a "six window" design, like the 1960, but also with a thin pillar. The four door also had the four window, flat top roof with a rear visor over the huge curving rear window, much like the 1959 and 1960 models, The Fleetwood had the heavier "formal" c pillar, kind of like a convertible.I checked several sources and It appears that only the Fleetwood had that type of roof.
Posted June 24, 2016 at 2:35 PM
As always, door edge guards (especially on a dark car, and a car with such strong horizontal lines) are a mistake. The aftermarket rub strip is gruesome.
Leave a Reply to Neil Cancel reply
J P Cavanaugh on Curbside Classic: 1971 Chrysler Newport Royal – Chrysler's Deadly Sin #6, The Fuselage Years
Dion on Curbside Classic: 1971 Chrysler Newport Royal – Chrysler's Deadly Sin #6, The Fuselage Years
Rex Patton on Curbside Classic: 1971 Chrysler Newport Royal – Chrysler's Deadly Sin #6, The Fuselage Years