I barely had time to get my iPhone out when I spotted this Sedan de Ville idling at a stop light as I was leaving a meeting. Its 472 c.i.d. (7.7l) V8 emitted a nice burble as it briskly promenaded past.
It might be a 1971 – the main exterior difference I was able to discern in my research was that the ’72 front bumper was pushed out ¾” from the ’71s and had PVC strips added for better parking lot protection. Since this car sports the strips on the vertical bumperettes, I’ll go with 1972, which was also Cadillac’s 70th anniversary year. Jordan Tenenbaum corrected me in the comments – it’s a ’71 after all!
Washington Street, Peoria, Illinois
Thursday, July 14, 2016
It’s a 71; 72s had the park/turning lamp in between the headlights.
Thanks for the correction!
I had a 1971 Sedan DeVille this exact same car that is shown I’m voted in 1993 it was in mint condition I got off of used car lot for $600 my wife got the car in a divorce and she sold it to the state of California for $400 and they crushed my caddy years later I work for an auto auction company I saw the exact same car go to the auction and it’s sold for $87,000 I don’t miss her but damn I miss my caddy
After moving back from Germany last summer, I spotted an original 72 Sedan DeVile at one of those shady used car lots. Curious, and in want of a summer car, I stopped by and checked it out. It was in fair condition — little bits and bobs missing here and there — but it ran well enough, so I asked if I could test drive it. On the main road, it was the ultimate cruiser, but when I turned down a chip and tarred country road with an all-too-fast speed limit of 55, I realized very quickly that all four shocks were completely and utterly blown. All of the bumps and undulations quickly set that normally-poised Cadillac into bottoming out bounce fest; I think I got air once.
Four shocks for one of those would not cost all that much. Not struts on the front.
Yep!
Right, but if all four shocks were that blown, surely the springs had seen better days. And then there’s the bushings, ball joints, tie rods, and on and on and on. Slippery slope on a car of this vintage.
This body was when I gave up on Cadillacs.
Too long, too ostentatious, quality control deprived, almost like a cartoon parody of the graceful, stylish Cadillacs of early/mid 1960’s.
The ’72 is only 1/2″ longer in WB and 4″ over all from its ’62 brother.
James is right, the 71 Cadillacs are not really much bigger than earlier Cadillac’s. In the 50’s the series 62 (which includes de Ville) are somewhat shorter (coupes were longer than sedans), but the Fleetwood Sixty Special was 225 inches long. The 60’s Cadillacs grew longer by the end.
I have no basis for the quality control, not having owned any from this time period, but I think fake wood appeared about this point in time. I really think that the Cadillac’s were at their best in the 1961 through perhaps 1967 period. This is not to say that the 1949 through 1956 period was bad. The fin era (1957 through 1959 or 60) is what it was, not good or bad.
AFAIK, there weren’t any Caddys with real wood from 70 thru 73.
I believe real wood was available on Fleetwood Broughams and Series 75, but not Calais or DeVille, the years that started and stopped I cannot recall right now.
AFAIK, the last year for real wood in Fleetwoods was 69. The mid-70s Talisman package had it, then no Caddys with real wood til the 80s.
Quality control suffered in the wake of the big GM strike in the fall of 1970, but GM also used cheaper materials on these cars (as compared to their 1970 predecessors).
A big problem with the 1971-76 full-size GM cars was a lack of structural rigidity. These cars felt very “loose” from day one, particularly the four-door hardtops. It wasn’t uncommon to see a cracked windshield on these cars caused by “body flex.”
I would have to agree with you there. Cadillacs began to be refined, well-oiled, tasteful machines between 1961 and 1967/1968. 1967 is the last Cadillac with a handcrafted interior, whereas the 1968’s came equipped with vacuum molded one-piecers, el cheapo’, cut a corno’. 1969 Cadillacs have an interior devoid of any subtle trim pieces, and the small details, like the Fleetwood wreath and crest embossed in the courtesy lamp lenses in the back of a 1967 Cadillac Fleetwood 60 Special, were no more. Cadillac began to slowly slip away after 1969. Granted the interior of the 1971-1976 Cadillacs were much more elegant than a 1969, Cadillac, by that time, had traded in their reputation and prestige for sales numbers and profit margins.
I’ll also go with ’71.
There’s plenty of criticism on the ‘net for the ’71 – ’76 GM full size car. But, there is a lot that is quite appealing.
Cadillac had a knack for reaching into its styling history and keeping continuity in the visual impression of it’s cars. I really like the rear quarters on these, which pay homage to the ’59 in particular – sans the giant fin, of course. The quarter sculpting transitions wonderfully to the Cadillac signature rear bumper look that originated in 1965.
For big cars, the ’71 -‘ 72 DeVilles look surprisingly light, open and airy with their fairly simple styling and big glass hardtop windows. They look absolutely sporty compared to the rather blocky ’69-’70 DeVilles, and much lighter than the contemporary Lincolns. The ’73 and up Cadillacs lost the best details of the styling on these cars to Federalized bumpers and obligatory sheet metal freshening.
A ’71 -’72 DeVille is on my list of old cars that I’d like to see in my garage. Coupe or Sedan, either works for me.
The gold is a terrific period color, which has roots going back to the mid 1960’s, it looks classy and doesn’t have that lost in the ’70s look that some colors did. The white top is very nice, but I’d probably prefer black……….
Dave B: perfect summary and why I like the 71 so much. Then they started mucking about with it. Even 72s are spoiled by the very minor changes.
“Cadillac had a knack for reaching into its styling history and keeping continuity in the visual impression of it’s cars. ”
Yes! There’s 30 years worth of quotes on display here. I’m not a fan of the interior, but this is a very nice looking exterior.
I completely agree with you, Dave, about the styling of these ’71-’72 Cadillacs. I really appreciate the heritage design of these cars. They have a more substantial, planted to the ground feel than the ’69-’70 models. The front end definitely has more road presence with that powerful domed hood and spaced headlamps. As you suggest, with the large glass area and slim ‘A’ pillars, these cars still manage to look light and airy. Of course, this design philosophy was about to die with the elimination of hardtops in 1974. By comparison, contemporary Cadillacs (and most other brands in the luxury class) look like armoured cars, with their thick pillars and slit-like windows. BTW, grilles on the ’72’s had a horizontal emphasis and the ‘V’ returned to the Cadillac crest this year. I also love the gold colour but would go for a white vinyl top if the interior were white leather. Gone are the days…
http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/NA/Cadillac/1972_Cadillac/1972-Cadillac-Brochure/1972-Cadillac-06
Adding the “opera” windows on the post ’73 “C” body sedans did no favors either!
Yes, an oddly anachronistic styling motif at that time, however, GM’s C
‘colonnade’ mid-sizers of 1973 were sadly already pointing the way to a hardtop-free, no roll down rear windows future.
Don’t know what happened there, lol… was intended to be “GM’s A-body colonnade mid-sizers…”
it’s OK, looks like a typo, C for “colonnade” to me!
I have a gold one just like this that i would get rid of grandma owned and has been stored in barn for the last 35 years just got running again fired up after i spent many hours of carefully unsiezing the motor and changing all the fluids and ignition components
I adore my 72 Fleetwood Sixty Special. Traded a snowmobile that didn’t run for it.
If you go big Cadillac go all the way! (I’d take this 60S before an Eldo!)
I go with 1971 too…because our family had one! There was a decorative medallion between the headlights, where the 1972 had its parking lights.
The 1971 was a distinct drop in quality from the 1966, which was a drop in quality from the 1963, even though our 1971 and 1966 were Sedans de Ville and the 1963, a Sixty-Two. The 1971 truly felt like a gussied-up Chevrolet though as long as the shock absorbers held up, it handled better than such a big car had any right to. Our next Cadillac was a 1979 Eldorado, whose initial perceived quality was high. But it fell apart over a few short years, its front end becoming loose and sloppy, the Landau vinyl roof fabric shrinking from beneath its mouldings, its cheap corporate GM headliner falling from the ceiling, and its extra-cost Firemist paint gradually flaking off whenever it got washed after about six years or so…and it had even been garaged the whole time my parents owned it and after it was given to me.
But worst of all was the diesel engine, about which enough has been said already, none of it good. Actually ours ran and ran…as long as the $50 fuel filter was replaced every 3000 miles, and that was even with an aftermarket Racor water separator ahead of it. At about seven years old and with a brand-new $50 fuel filter so it would run smoothly, the Eldo was traded on the first of a string of Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable wagons.
Our 1971 Cadillac was a harbinger of the end of my family’s Cadillac experience.
It can take years to win a customer and just one bad experience to lose them. However with far too many of Cadillac’s faithful there was one bad experience after another, all on the same car which led to a horrendous ownership nightmare. Yet another example that will be discussed in business schools for years to come which is a double whammy as business school graduates are exactly the type of customer that Cadillac would like to attract. They’ll need a better ad agency than they have now to overcome such a stigma.
Remember the Motor Trend test of the 71 Cadillac and Caprice, G. Poon ? “The High Priced Spread” it was called and made the same comparison that you did. Even questioned if the price penalty was worth it !
That might make a good CC post!
My Dad’s best friend, a Ford man, always called the Cadillacs “big Chevys.” The 1971 was the one that actually felt like it.
nice car although styling and performance wise I’ve thought this was a slight step down to the 1970 and earlier Cadillac’s, for some reason I always associate this era of the Cadillac Sedan Deville’s with the movie License To Drive with the two Corey’s.
A friend’s father purchased one new and had nothing but problems. I’ll never forget the look on his face when a headlight and bezel fell out of the front grill as he pulled into his driveway after a long day of drilling teeth and plugging cavities.
We knew enough to keep quiet until he stormed into the house (presumably for gin).
He bought foreign cars after that. I remember a Volvo.
Four door hardtops are really cool with all the windows down, cruising in the Fall or Spring. The unobstructed views remind me of antique touring cars. The structure held up pretty well considering how little support there was for the windows. My ’56 SDV was pretty solid when I got it 40 years later. I liked cruising with all the windows down and sunroof open in my ’94 Seville. I was up in Sonoma County a few months ago cruising some of the country back roads with the windows down in my Jag. Nolan, that’s a beautiful car! Fleetwood Sixty Specials and Broughams from the early 1960s through the late 1970s are some of the best cars that Cadillac ever made. These cars were made to be owner driven, you might look a little odd driving yourself around in a limousine. I hope more of these cars will be preserved in the future.
Yes, Stepping up to the 60 Special /Fleetwood brougham was a significant jump in luxury in those years (beyond a mere trim level “bump”. In certain years an Electra was at or above DeVille in appointments, But the 60S (F.B) WAS Cadillac all the way!
I’ll go on record and say that I hate the front end of the 71 and 72 Deville series. I think it completely works against the design of the rest of the car, and it makes the entire thing look like a bug-eyed, buck toothted, simpleton. Hell, I’m going to be so bold, and say that this is one of the few cars that looked better with the 5 MPH railroad bumpers in front of it.
The 1974 model year brought the headlights together, which may be what you are getting at. The 1975 model year got the rectangular headlights, which are a wash as an improvement in style.
I admit I’m weird,But I have the opposite feelings on their fronts. The 75-76 were a “wash” but pointed to “the future”, but to me 71-72 had better faces than 73-74. YMMV!
Love the ’71-72, used to hate the ’73-’74 but recently saw one at a car show and now find them okay. The ’75-76 though is grafting a late-1970s front on a big early-1970s body and once you look at a ’77-79, the ’75-76 just looks too zaftig.
To me, the most beautiful big Caddys ever made were the ’62 and the ’77-79.
True enough, Putting the “modern” rectangular lamps on the old body is like glass block windows in a Victorian building, But IMHO it was better than 73-74. The 77+ “C” bodies were a game changer, in fact – My favorite generation. (I’m biased in that regard!, since I’ve had multiple Buick and Cadillac “C”/”D” bodies of the ’77-’89 era)!
See I love the ’75-’76, especially the ’75s of all C Bodies. I think it’s a nice integration of the lights without an adoption of the ’77 front end as happened on some ’76s.
Trust me, I’d love a ’75, The front end is fine, It’s the “opera” windows (on the 4dr) that I never cared for. Adapting a “future” feature (rectangular lamps) on the “old” body is like the opposite of everything else of the 70s, IE: 1930s elements on 1970s bodies. So, I thought it was neat, If they’d kept the 71-73 roof, It would look (to me) classier. So In my case, make it a ’75 Fleetwood!
Seconded. The rear is sort of interesting, but the front…
Of the 1971-76 Caddies I’ve thought the 1972 front end was the best looking of the bunch and the 1974 was the worst looking of the bunch.
Aunt Madea!!!
Which I believe is a ’69.
Grille texture looks 1970, But YMMV!
It is a 1970- – no “V” below the Crest and painted metal headlight surrounds.
As far is I know (YMMV!) the lack of a “V” was a ’70-’71 thing (and the above looks to be a ’70). I am going to assume that GM figured that a “call out” for a “V” type engine was at that point “old fashioned”. (Cadillac having had a “V8” since 1915). Those two years kept the “wreath” though, and brought back the “V” for 1972-1984 DeVille. In 1985 they applied the “wreath” to all Cadillac logos. (a minor, but tellng GM deadly sin). ?
I’ll take it with an upgrade kit to HEI. What a beauty!
I know the dash cracks and the doors rattle on these suckers but I love em. Great ride, great comfort, and considering their size they corner and make u turns incredibly well. I’ve never driven the Chrysler or Ford competition, but I’m impressed by these machines.
I have passing experience in all three of the era, The Big GMs handled pretty good for the size and mission, But I’d havta admit the New Yorker and Imperial offerings handled best overall.
Good looking car and I like the lovely bridge in the background.
It is! Being a Pittsburgher, I notice bridges, And that one IS a beautiful one!
That’s the I-74 bridge over the Illinois River in Peoria. They repainted it about five years ago or so.
I-74 starts in Cincinnati at I-75, and I can faintly hear the motorcycles and heavy trucks on 74 from my deck…I had no idea how far it went…
One of this general vintage and color parks on 25th street between Ninth and Tenth avenues in Manhattan, somehow. The hood looks long enough to land planes on. It’s incredibly huge.
By experience with a similar-bodied ’75 Olds 98, it’s not THAT hard to park in Manhattan. Really good visibility out back is the key. One finger steering is a big help, too. If pointing westbound, the south side of the street is easier. You point it N by NW, get the rear overhang and left rear tire as far back as you dare, then sweep the wheel right. I can usually do it in one turn, two or three adjustments if the space is tight.
I haven’t seen that gold Caddy parked but will look out for it next time I’m over there (I had seen a battered white ’77 CDV). There is the green pimp one in LIC, and I’ve seen a light grey one uptown, unfortunately on big rims. I mostly do not keep my car in the city these days, except when I know I will need it.
My grandmother had a ’71 Cadillac Calais—that was the bottom-of-the-line model, I think. A 4-door hardtop in that same gold. No vinyl top (much nicer to my eye without). Gold cloth interior. I was just a kid, but I always liked various design features of that car, particularly the picture-perfect taillights evincing just the right amount of tailfin without being stupid about it. Grandma was barely 5 feet all in shoes, so all an outside observer saw was a wisp of grey hair just above the steering wheel. She looked out between the wheel and the dash. Amazingly enough she never crashed it, not even a little bit. By and by she replaced it with an ’87 Stinkoln Clown Car. Bad trade; there was scant if any improvement in her ability to see, and the Stinkoln was pathetic in design, sloppy in build, and poor in dependability. Eventually she replaced that with her last car, a ’95 Cadillac DeVille. Safer and cleaner than either the ’87 or the ’71, but that’s about where the plaudits end. She still couldn’t see, and the ’95 just made her look like a Republican.
Grandpa, on the other hand, was average height—about 5’9″. His last car was a very nicely equipped Dart.
Yes, The Calais was the series 62, The DeVille was Series 63… Top dog was series 75. How the 60 series is HIGHER than 62-63 but LOWER than 75 is math that only hardcore Caddy historians can figure…. Either way the Calais (or Series 62..) cost what a top line optioned Buick Electra would cost, But was a CADILLAC! (Though a 1958 Buick Roadmaster Limited cost MORE than a Cadillac Series 62) Thanks GM! I have a headache now! LOL! PS: My first Cadillac made me look like a Republican…..Oh, wait….I resemble that remark!
Actually when the Calais went into production the series numbering system was dropped. The Deville started out as a hardtop series 62. I think that it was 1959 when the Deville got its own series number, 63. I kind of think that Fleetwood Sixty Special made more sense than Fleetwood Sixty One Special. The Fleetwood series 65 did exist at one time on a longer wheelbase.
The references to the historical numbers was to keep the lineage straight. Like (Special/LeSabre),(Century/Invicta/Wildcat/Centurion) (Super/Electra) (Roadmaster/Electra 225) etc. The Calais was what would have been a Series 62.
Calais was the low end for sure. I have always thought it was more of a 61 than 62, but perhaps 61.5.
The last series 61 was a “B” body, Since the Series 62 was the first rung of the “C” body ladder, I put Calais as a “62”. (my only reason, YMMV!)
What Cadillac did was to drop the Series 62 name (and redid the internal body number scheme) and replaced it with a new model called the Calais. The Deville series was never sold or bought as a series 62 or 63, but the customers wanted a “Deville”. The Devilles outsell the Calais by a wide margin. The Sixty Special out sells the Calais. The Brougham version of the Sixty Special out sells the “plain” Sixty Special beginning with 1966 models.
The series 60 was first used for the 1935 models, but was the V16. V8 models were series 10. The 1936 models had new series number again, with the series 60 the low end Cadillac, Series 75’s were Fleetwoods, and the V16 was series 90.
Things were more complicated than that. The Fleetwood 75 was a series 75 until 1959 when it became the series 67, but was still considered the Fleetwood 75 sedan/limo. The Eldorado Brougham was a series 69 in 1959, but had been the series 70 for 57-58. The Eldorado convertible/coupe was upgraded to a 64 from 62. My guess is that this revision made the Eldorado Brougham the top of the line, where its position before may have been somewhat unclear.
The 1965 revision basically did away with the series numbers and replaced them with names: Calais series, Deville series and Fleetwood series.
Trying to figure out Cadillac internal (and external) model numbering system from the 30s thru the 80s (I’m cutting it off there with the last Series 75 generation) is complicated enough to justify a Junior College course!
Prior to 1935 (but after V8 engines) the series numbers were based on the engine size, so this is not so complicated. Fleetwood’s were only Fleetwood’s if they had a Fleetwood body until GM bought Fleetwood. The 1936 through 1964 Series system was only changed once, in 1959, but there were a number of series that came and went during that time.
I’ve driven an old Lincoln. It was a ’67. Enjoyed it. I could float down the highway at 75 mph. I’ve not yet had the opportunity to drive an old Caddy, but I wouldn’t turn it down if given the chance.
I like the looks of most Cadillacs between 1962-77. To me, the 1974 model was the least attractive looking of all those model years. Last year of the round Caddy headlights in square bezels just doesn’t look as good as the rectangular ’75s or the ’73s that surrounded it.
The 71’s also had the louvers in the trunk for ‘flo-thru ventilation’.
Yep, My ’71 Deuce and a Quarter had ’72 taillights, But there’s no hiding those louvers! (I oddly thought they were cool!)
I didn’t really like these back then, but I find them very attractive now. Not enough to own, but at least to look at.
Unlike some others, I have driven representatives of all 3 big American LuxCars of the early-mid 70s. The Lincoln was the quietest, smoothest, and used the best interior materials. I also liked its classic looks.
The Imperial (and later New Yorker) was structurally the tightest with a very nice, stiff platform. It was more of a driver’s car with more road feel (and noise) and with full instrumentation. By 1974 the assembly quality was quite iffy.
The Cadillac was sort of the middle ground. They were pretty good handlers and were quieter and smoother than Imperial, but not as good as Lincoln. The Cadillac had very nice seats, but almost everything else in the interior just screamed “cheap”. The deal-breaker for me was the comparatively willowy structure, something that had not been evident in earlier Cadillacs, at least not to this degree.
These Cadillacs also didn’t age well. Within a few years, big rust spots – looking like sores – appeared under the vinyl roof molding on the trunk lid and “C” pillar, as well as under the protective side trim.
JP have you driven a 70s Lincoln recent years?
No, all of my wheel time in them was in the late 70s. My father had a 78 Town Coupe and we also took a 1200 mile round trip in a 74 Town Car that belonged to Dad’s business partner, late in 1975. I also worked at a place where I got to drive the owner’s 79 Town Car.
That same employer also had a 76 Fleetwood Brougham and a 77 Fleetwood Brougham, along with a 76 Electra 225. The only one of the batch I ever owned was the 77 New Yorker Brougham that I traded on a new car in 1985. My mother had bought it used in 1982 with 34k on the odometer. So I got to compare them all when they were either new or lightly used.
The vertical headlight Cadillac years are my favorites, especially ’65-’66. Later cars do nothing for me. Interiors also started to look cheaper as well.
Interiors began looking cheap due to safety regs, Soft, squsishy plastic replaced metal on the dash, All other “hardware” in the interior following. Still a 1992 Cadillac Brougham was more “Cadillacy” than the 1993 replacement, Monotonous single color/material had to look “euro” —- I’m gonna wretch now!
just got this one a few weeks ago!!!!!! 1971 Cadillac Coupe de Ville
My ’71 “Deuce and a Quarter” was this exact color combo! Nice! —- Remember when TV was black and white but cars were in color! ?
this one is the “cypress green metallic”. It changes color depending on the lighting … in bright sunshine appears as almost pure gold…when cloudy almost a pea green. In rain it picks up a green/gold color. Will be repainting this one this winter…it is a 10′ car..looks great from 10′ away, but lots of rust starting on the door undersides that really needs nipped in the bud before it really gets bad. Initially was considering changing the top color to white (see photo attached)…but the more I appreciate it as a monument to 1971 style I’ll probably just put a dark green vinyl top on. The present top is faded quite a bit, and the paint charts show that the vinyl would have been “Dark green” rather than the medium/moss green it is now. This is a quickie photoshop of the car how it would look with a white top, black top, dark green and original.
the 71’s (and 72’s) have the ‘unique’ license plate monument of sorts as a front bumper….after trying several plates I think this one works well. I’d like to find a similar plate without the “wreaths/wheat shocks” as this is not a Fleetwood, but at least the color matches the bumper.
Finding one without the wreath means finding an actual old one, In another example of GM watering down a brand, all 1985 and later Cadillacs carried the wreathed crest, rather than just the Fleetwoods. PS I might be wrong, but I think 1970 and 1971 are the only pre-1985 DeVilles that don’t have the “V” under the crest!
yes..I believe so as well…at least on 71’s there was no V at all anywhere on the Sedan deVille or Coupe deVilles.
I was thinking of adding a hood ornament but the “bottom weighted” bumper makes a hood ornament not visually pleasing so leaving as designed.
My 1970 Sedan DeVille also had no “V”s. It’s odd as the ’69 had them as did the ’72. Maybe some marketing genius figured they were “old fashioned”, and perhaps not having them aroused dealer/customer complaints?
probably….the V returned I think by the 72 models? I think the 71 needs a bit more bling…when I redo mine I’m going to bling it out just a tad..going to add opera lights and coupe de ville script to the roof pillars on either side as just really to plain on the sides.