When it comes to being cynical about GM, I probably rank only slightly below our boss himself. In fact, long before Paul took on the 1971 models and the 1976 Seville, I’d already lambasted some widely revered Cadillacs I felt no longer represented The Standard Of The World. But today, I pose this question: When was the peak for Cadillac?
In the 1960s, Cadillac was on top of the world and still in ascent. And the competition? Well, Packard was in the grave. Imperial–still perceived by many as a “Chrysler Imperial”–was sales-impaired. Following its own recent brush with death, Lincoln survived only by (once again) reinventing itself. It seemed that Cadillac could do no wrong, despite clinging to tail fins long after they had become passé for everyone else but Oldsmobile. My heart belongs to the ’62 models, even though some can’t abide their lower “skeg” fins.
Enter the 1963 models: Still smaller and less flamboyant than the quintessentially ’50s 1959-60 models, but decidedly more boldly styled than the ’61s and ’62s. Underneath, they were essentially the same as Cadillacs of the previous two model years, but there were a few notable updates.
Along with their new and beautiful styling and 143 interior-appointment choices (including optional wool bucket seats) came the first major update of the Cadillac V8. During the previous 14 years, it had received occasional increases in displacement, but for 1963 it left the engineering lab smaller, lighter and even more efficient. Paired with the traditional four-speed Hydra Matic for the final time, it offered 1963 Cadillac buyers at least the hope of achieving double-digit gas mileage, something The Standard of the World could not offer again until 1976.
Nineteen sixty-four brought even more refinement and power. The somewhat stiff shifts of the old, fluid- coupled Hydra Matic were replaced by the creamy-smooth shifting of the new Turbo Hydra-Matic. Under the hood was newly enlarged 429 cu in V8 producing a breezy 340 horsepower. That extra thrust meant 0-60 times just a tick under or over nine seconds, and a top speed beyond 125 mph. The lucky occupants didn’t have to worry about the breeze at all, thanks to Cadillac’s new automatic climate control.
Here was Cadillac at the precipice of complacency, just before the onslaught of all-out war over the definition of “luxury.” Soon, the changes of just one model year would plant the seeds of Cadillac’s fall from grace: The Calais that succeeded the Series 62 wasn’t nearly as lush as its predecessor and was, truth be told, barely more luxurious than its Olds Ninety-Eight and Buick Electra 225 cousins–not to mention Ford’s new “luxury for the common man” assault in the form of the LTD.
It’s also worth noting that after 1964, Cadillac stopped being, well, innovative. Whether that had anything to do with the relative failures of radicalism at every other GM division in the early ’60s, Cadillac became content to watch technology pass them by. In 1965, disc brakes, fuel injection and assorted other technological bragging rights were being trumpeted by Thunderbirds and Mercedes Benzes.
Cadillac did have some radical stuff happening in the studio and in the lab. One of their most ambitious and well known undertakings was the stillborn V-12 project, which at least never became an almost certain potential headache for buyers. With such resounding success, why mess with the formula? When some 85% of upper-income buyers deem you the best choice in the field, why rock the boat?
That kind of self-assured confidence is why these Cadillacs appeal to me so. They still do a bit of shouting compared with the nearly-as-luxurious but more solemn senior Buicks and Chryslers of the day, but do not seem as outlandishly outdated as contemporary Imperials, nor as austere as Camelot Continentals.
They represent an intermezzo, a beautiful period when they were winning athletes not yet getting soft around the middle. They also represented the end of a nearly 20-year arc of an icon of automotive styling the tail fin. The 1965 models had their blade tip fenders but please, don’t call them “tail fins.”
I must note: For cars produced 50 years ago, I see A LOT of these. In fact, for this piece I’m using shots of the various models I’ve spotted during the last year alone. I can think only of similar-vintage Falcons as such regular sightings. For those unafraid of the gasoline bill, or the prospect of parking one in present-day parking mini-spaces, they promise to be long-lived and always enjoyable rides.
Now, what do we have here? The last true Standard of the World, I’d say. Really, is there any way one can point to a 1989 Brougham and call it a truly worthy successor to these Kings? What do you say?
My vote for the greatest postwar Cadillacs ends in a 3 way tie: All Coupe DeVilles.
61-62 , 63-64, 69-70. In my opinion, all 3 evoke what classic Cadillacs should. Nothing after 1970 even comes close.
I’ve never owned one of those genres, although I’ve owned a 66 Deville convertible. The 66 evokes a degree of greatness, but I feel the vertical headlights just don’t fit in with the “look”.
The 69-70 is a refinement of that 65-68 design.
It may sound like a terrible thing to some of you, guys, but I always found the front ends of ’63 and ’64 Caddies awkward, somewhat a return to the oh-so-flamboyant-and-overdone 1959. So, I’d rather stick to the somewhat cleaner looking ’61s and ’62s (don’t like ’61 rear end too much, though), as well as ’65 and ’66’s with their vertically stacked headlights and overall clean look (don’t like the ’67 and ’68’s “coke bottle” styling either).
But… the Last True Caddie… to me that would be the 1978 Eldo.
AND maybe the 1996 Fleetwod, as the really really last of the last…
About 50 year old cars being regular sightings on the road… I guess it’s more about such very special cars getting very special care from their owners, as no initial craftsmanship (which was indeed outstanding – no argument here) lasts for so long, sadly.
Having owned a number of these cars and presently being the owner of a 63 and 76 Fleetwood, both low mileage cars, I find I can appreciate the styling of just about all postwar Cadillacs. The 63 and especially the 64 are very handsome but the later models beginning with 472 engine were by far the best. The 68 is a favorite of mine. Beginning in 68 and lasting for quite some time Cadillac drivetrains were almost bullet proof.
So my answer to your question is no, 63 and 64 were not the greatest postwar Cadillacs due to their engines and the 63 transmission, but personally I find them among the most handsome.
Keith Kaucher sketched a interesting “what if?” and imagined a more sportier coupe named Espada for the 1963-64 Cadillac
http://www.hubgarage.com/mygarage/BLKGT350/vehicles/2029/photos/105780
And check for pictures of clay models of proposed Cadillac V12 and V16
http://cgdailydrive.com/psychedelic-16-cadillacs-multi-cylinder-concepts-of-the-60s/
Laurence,
I commend you for your beautiful writing and photography, and for politely raising an interesting issue. This question is one that I have also thought about, as I also run into these cars frequently where I live in the Washington, DC area. My personal preference is for the 1965-66 edition, as they seem to me to be the more coherent design: they finally left behind the last vestiges of the fin era in favor of a new design concept, albeit one heavily influenced by the Lincoln Continental. One can criticize it for being somewhat derivative of both Lincoln (the rectangular design concept) and Pontiac (the mid-60s-trendy vertical stacked headlights), but the design succeeds at being dignified and bold at the same time.
That said, I would not turn down a good 1963-64 Cadillac if I found one for sale. I am still kicking myself for not trying to scrounge up money for a 1964 Seventy Five that I found in 1994 in dusty, flat-tired but completely rust-free condition in an underground parking garage, where it had sat since the 1970s. I was a 24 year old with no money to spare then, and car was worth very little. Now my means are far greater, but the price of the cars has gone up as well.
These cars do not receive much attention compared to Mustangs, Corvettes and other sporty cars of the 1960s, but I have found that they still get a lot of respect from the general public, even those too young to remember when the cars were new and Cadillac was “the standard of the world.” Along with suicide-door Lincolns, they are one of those cars that people of every age, social position, race, etc. immediately recognize for what they were when they were new.
The 87-92 Brougham is very much a worthy successor. If anything history was repeating itself around 87 with Caddy staying the course with the C body, Lincoln fumbling around trying to switch from a Fox Conti to a gussied up Taurus and Chrysler again having no real competition.
By the late 80’s the competition for Cadillac their wasn’t just Lincoln and Chrysler but Mercedes Benz, BMW, Jaguar and beginning in 1990 Lexus. A late 80’s Brougham could hardly be considered The Standard of the World compared to a Mercedes W126 S-Class, a 1988 BMW 735 or a 1990 Lexus LS400. By 1987 the Brougham was a 10 year old design with an Oldsmobile engine that was clearly yesterday’s idea of a luxury car. In many ways Cadillac had become like Packard in the 1950’s: living off their past image and no longer selling true luxury cars while others like Mercedes, BMW and Lexus became the trend setters that Cadillac had once been.
If anything the 1980’s Cadillacs just reinforce how far Cadillac had fallen, Broughams included
I’ve never cared very much about these as they look like they’re standing in the middle of the road of two real icons like the ’59 Cadillacs and ’61-’64 Lincolns but I admit they’re growing on me: they’re real classy motoring !
Laurence, your photography is stunningly beautiful, as always. I am also smitten by the black 63 Fleetwood sedan(s) as featured in multiple shots, as it is the identical twin to the one I owned as a broke college student.
To answer your question: I owned both a 63 and an 89, so I consider myself uniquely qualified. Perhaps in a single way, the 89 is a worthy successor to the 63, and that would be in mechanical durability and body integrity. I would also note that the quality of the upholstery was similar. But in all other ways, the 89 cannot compare to the older model. The 89 plunked Cadillac crests all over the inside to remind you that you were in a Cadillac. The 63 had no need to. I spent a little time in a relative’s 67 Calais, and the descent was beginning, even then. The quality of the interior materials was on the decline.
When someone says “Cadillac”, the 63-64 is the one that still comes to my mind. I can see the case for either year’s styling as the better of the two. The 64 is a bit more rakish, the 63 is a bit bolder.
I might be tempted to disagree with LeBaron on one point – I don’t think that the Jetaway HydraMatic gives anything up to the Turbo Hydramatic in terms of durability. My own 63 (at 15 years and 90K miles) had leaking tranny seals when I got it. I was prepared to spend money on a transmission, and took it to a shop. The guy told me that he could swap a rebuilt one if necessary, but seriously doubted that it would need anything but seals. “These things last forever”, he said.
The powertrain of the 63 seals the deal for me over the 64. If you are going to have an old Cadillac, it should have 4 forward gears and reverse at the bottom of the shift quadrant. 🙂
And to hint at my vote, I actually prefer the ’62s. Those, in ANY body style, are my absolute favorites. Just about any other model year I couldn’t see ponying up more money than for an Olds Ninety Eight or Buick Roadmaster/Electra. And by the 1970s, my West Coast snobbery has me in a 280SE 4.5.
I’ve criticized the 65-66s as just being too complacent and dull looking for my tastes, I don’t need the 472 that came after that… and everything through 1959 was too gaudy/flamboyant for me (odd considering I’d fall for a ’59 Buick). 1960 through 64 was a refining period of streamlined flamboyance that I really appreciate.
I have a soft spot for the dual-coupling four-speed Hydra-Matic, although on some level it’s hard not to acknowledge that it’s sort of a Rube Goldberg device. It was quite heavy (the ’63 version was still 229 lb), probably very, very expensive to build, and very complex. (When I wrote about the Hydra-Matics a while back, I got some criticism for not doing a diagram of the controlled coupling H-M — I tried, but after staring at different schematics of it for days, my eyes rolled back into my head.) The dual-coupling transmission had some advantages, but the switch-pitch TH400 was certainly no slouch and was presumably cheaper to manufacture by a long mile.
The final iteration of the first-gen OHV V8 was quite an engineering achievement in many ways. Despite being all-iron, it was one of the lightest engines of its size: 595 lb dry, nearly 100 lb lighter than a Chevy 396/427. The Car and Driver comparison test Paul talked about a few months back found that the Cadillac was the quickest of the bunch and had high praise for its refinement. That engine was a good illustration of why the American industry became so wedded to the V8 in the first place.
Hey, what’s not to like about the good old V-8? Torque to burn along with smoothness and quiet. When gas was 40 cents a gallon, I wouldn’t dream of driving around in a little deathtrap like a Beetle so I could save $3.00 a week in gasoline.
The Cadillac V-8 was a wonderful iteration of the V-8. I particularly liked the smaller ones because Cadillac resisted the temptation (for a while anyway) to keep punching it out in the quest for more torque. I have never seen this motor in for any kind of major repair and we worked on lots of these 1960s Cadillac cars. The were very well built until 1968.
I’m partial to all of the 50-70 Fleetwoods, but would agree that the quality touches starting going downhill after 1968. The difference between the fittings in my ’68 Fleetwood are striking over my ’69 60 Special. The mileage question varies considerably as they get into the 70’s though. The 68/69 will return 17US at a steady 65 on the highway, but the later 73 will do about 14. I’ve heard that the 390 in proper tune is even better than the 472, and comparable to a modern SUV,
I agree that the 390 was the best of the bunch. Recently I reread an old Smokey Yunick piece where the owner was complaining that his 390 had a rough idle. Smokey correctly said it was due to a hot cam to get more power out of the motor. Seems GM was listening because the 390 was soon punched out to 472 cid.
A properly tuned 390 should do about 18-19 miles per US gallon at 65 mph.
The 390 was punched out to 429; the 472/500 was an all-new engine.
’69 60 Special
I prefer the ’65 myself. Not only because my friend had one in my youth and all the memories that comes with that car. The ’65 has smooth ride and good looks without excesses. No tailfins and of course the stacked headlights that first could be seen on Pontiac, who had the best designers of full size cars at the time.
I think these are the quintessential Cadillacs. They perfectly blend all of the previous post-war Cadillac styling into a modern and beautiful car, which is still stunning. Later Cadillacs just feel like they’re aping the past, trying to recapture old glory, these are the glory.
The peaks (and valleys) don’t come in a particular model year. It’s not the adoption of a particular technology, or the abandonment of a particular technology, in a particular year that marks a beginning or an end. It’s a process that stretches over many years. So the best post-war Caddy is the one that fits your own priorities as to what a Caddy should be. Also, it’s worth pointing out that Cadillac’s post-war history is longer than it’s prewar history. So far, there is no post-war endpoint.
I do prefer the styling of the ’63/64s over what comes later. I also prefer it to the 61/62 cars, which looked more like an Olds than a Caddy. The 63/64 cars were more substantial looking, which befits Cadillac. Still, I think I’d go with mid-50s styling over the 63/64.
I had a ’58, which I’d have to admit was an ugly car. 59/60 models were caricatures. I did like the 4spd trans in my ’58.
I’ve always viewed the 1963-64 Cadillacs as operating in the shadows. They were less flamboyant than the 1959-62s but old hat compared to the 1965s, with their fully modern body.
The 1964s represented the last of the “pontoon” Cadillacs. For 1965 GM switched to curved side glass, which allowed less ponderous fender shoulders. Cadillac went a step further than other GM divisions by adopting an almost fuselage-style integration of the C-pillar and fender.
This was a radical idea for a large American luxury car. Not surprisingly, by 1967 Cadillac switched back to a more sharply defined fender that showcased a new interpretation of the tail fin.
I prefer the 61-62 cars – specifically the 1961s – as I still prefer the Atomic Age vision of luxury, where I think from 63 on, Cadillac was starting down the Brougham Age. I also think interior material quality started to decline with the 1963s.
If I were to own any luxury car (including new ones) it would be either. 1961 or 1962 Cadillac, or a 1962 Imperial. As it stands, I own a 2010 Dodge Challenger R/T, which, despite its 1970 muscle car duds, is the closest thing available today to the large luxury coupes that were once so popular. Chrysler could easily rebody it and swap in a 300-style interior and sell it for $15,000 more. Everyone who rides in it remarks about how comfortable it is. It may look like a competitor to the Mustang and Camaro, but it is really a very different sort of car, despite the Tremec Tr6060 and Hemi Orange paint.
To me the real turning point was 1969. The seamless power train was still there, and I always liked the styling of that year (though even that was cheapened in 1970). The beginning of the end for me was the interiors and the overall quality of materials and workmanship.
Starting with the 1956 models and most years thereafter, I was well acquainted with these cars and later owned a ’69 Sedan de Ville, bought as a 23,000 mile “cream puff”.
The interior of this car was absolutely disgraceful. Metal castings were replaced by cheap looking plastic. The instrument cluster was horrible quality molded black plastic with painted-on “chrome” lines. The power window controls moved around in the armrest because they weren’t actually fastened to anything. Door pulls did just that – pulled out of the doors. I could go on and on. Electras and 98s had higher-grade interiors than a Cadillac. But in spite of this, I recall that Cadillac was setting sales records in these years. There were people out there who would still buy them because they were Cadillacs.
Agreed; as I mentioned in my other posts, the Cadillac of 1968 on was nowhere near the car that came before it. GM made fat profits on these cars but only kept market share by going down market. When auto workers in Detroit could afford to buy a Cadillac new, any exclusivity the brand had was gone. It was only a matter of time until Cadillac became the also ran it is today.
Thats the true mark of a luxury car its hard to get one either financially or they dont build many Cadillac became bling on a Chev
“But in spite of this, I recall that Cadillac was setting sales records in these years. There were people out there who would still buy them because they were Cadillacs.”
I’ve read numerous articles that say that GM’s upper management pushed Cadillac to aim for higher sales numbers at the cost of “exclusivity”, which probably is the major reason for the post 1968 decline.
Here’s a link to a story about an apparently factory customized 1961 Caddy convertible that I saw on the HMN blog…it may be of interest to readers here.
http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=735537
1967 – 68 is when Cadillac reached it’s styling pinnacle, and it was all downhill from there. I can’s speak to the quality of the cars, but visually the are sharp and crisp. The forward lean in the nose gives it a sense of motion, which is a pretty neat trick for a car so large.
Yes, the early 60’s Cadillacs may well be the greatest postwar Caddies. I’d like to nominate a runner-up: 1956. Improved in small detail from the ’55, it exhibited traditional Cadillac styling touches, including some flamboyance (e.g., the Dagmar front bumper). Interiors were first class, with fine fabrics, lovely colors, elegant design, and quality metal trim pieces. The ’56 was the last Cadillac that could be considered something of a muscle car, with acceleration superior to most cars. The bulk and height (no chaise-lounge seating!) of the car contributed to the feel that a Cadillac was a true luxury car.
From ’57 on, Cadillac showed a tendency to be a parody of itself.
Both the ’64 and ’69 Cadillacs could run the 1/4 mile in the 16-second bracket. The ’56 was not that quick. The ’64 and ’69 could do 0-60 mph in 8.5 to 9.5 seconds; a ’56 was around 11 seconds.
I’d say 65-66 was the peak even though I like the more subtle fins. The fender creases after 64 are understated and add to the visual length to make it more elegant than any series after. Since GM ruined Cadillac by adding volume in the 1970s, it does seem that the years 1963-1966 are where supply never kept up with demand the cars were far more exclusive and desirable…
I agree the body integrity was much better in the early 60’s and begin it’s decline with the 67 model year. I believe 71 was the first year the bottom fell out of quality and it continued.
As for the engines: I have never owned a 390 powered Cadillac that did not experience some problems either minor or major. I have never owned a 472 or 500 powered Cadillac that had any problems. As for the 400 transmission; they never made them better. I have lots of stories I could tell to support my opinion.
When considering the appearance of these cars I must say I can appreciate something about all of them, of course I like some more than others.
I will close by saying I am not trying to turn this into a spitting contest or call anyone with different findings a liar. I have no reason not to believe others who have different results to report, which I find interesting. I am only doing the same; reporting what my experience has been having owned a number of these cars of the 1960’s and 1970’s.
Of all the postwar Cadillacs, I would have to chose the 57. It had the perfect fin and a light but substantial look. It aslo wore the fifties pastels extremely well. It is also the first of the fifties Cadillacs that clearly broke the mold established by the 48. The 58 dual headlight and fin update spoiled, what is for me, the greatest postwar Cadillac.
I agree. Among 1950’s Cads the ’57 is just about perfect.
I believe the 63-64 is probably the best of the 60’s, and that is saying a lot. I agree with the people who said the 63-64 has similar styling to the 59-60 (especially the 60). It’s like they took the 60 and refined it, making it straighter and more modern. Personally, I think it is beautiful.
Laurence, your photos are always a delight, but that red ’64 seen through the tree is a true gem. Frame-worthy. Thanks for brightening a very gray morning for both of us.
The Caddy that I actually got to ride around in a lot was an 1969 Eldo with the black leather interior. I’d to this day say these a nicest seats I’ve ever sat in. The leather in regards to quality & workmanship in those are still the best I’ve seen. + the space ship tailights . I’ll call that my Caddy high water mark.
The other angle using sourced from the internet pics
Superb as always, LJ.
I always liked ’65-’66. Two reasons: I like stacked headlights … the Fords and Pontiacs especially; and the only Caddy I’ve ever driven was a ’66 that belonged to my parents’ friends who previously had a Hudson Hornet. Sadly (or perhaps appropriately, given its huge size) I drove the Caddy, fully loaded, on a dump run. I think I was about 18, so the car would have been about 10 years old and frankly seemed very dated. Ultra-light but slow steering, touchy brakes, and very big.
I have owned two ’63 Cadillacs and can personally attest to the incredibly high quality of materials and assembly. I used to love to listen to the sound of the doors closing. What other GM car can you say that about?
There are some interesting “firsts” in these years. The tilt steering column was first offered in ’63. The ’63 Caddy was also the first GM car to have a dual master cylinder — which led to litigation contending other GM brands were unsafe for not having them. As noted, the ’64 Cadillac introduced the automatic temperature control system where you just turned a dial to the desired temperature and the system did the rest. On the other hand, diagnosing and repairing an old Cadillac climate control can be a pain, so that is an argument in favor of buying a ’63 today.
The debates about the ’63 and ’64 transmissions go on and on. The four speed Hydra-Matics in both of my 63’s operated flawlessly. Points to consider today are that it can be hard to find someone skilled in repairing the four-speed if you need to, and it has the old PNDLR shift pattern which means leaving your ’63 with a parking valet is a risky proposition.
Same with the 390 and 429 engines. 429’s are noted for developing oil leaks around the timing chain cover, which can warp out of shape and is not being reproduced.
That dual master cylinder came in quite handy when I owned my 63. On a drive home from college (with about 3 other kids in the car) the brakes kept getting worse and worse, until they were just terrible – a very hard pedal that was quite ineffective at really stopping that 5200 pound car. After I got home, I discovered that one of the rear brake lines had rotted through. Any other car of that vintage, and we would surely have been in a bad accident. Also, I am glad I lost rear brakes instead of front. Actually, I believe that the AMC Ambassador also used a dual-circuit brake system at that time.
I’ve always admired the beauty and grace of the ’61-’64 Cadillacs. The later models just don’t have it. My friend’s dad owned a ’74 Sedan De Ville, and it was like night and day compared to the early ’60’s models. My in-laws had an ’88 Sedan De Ville, and while it was roomy and quiet, it drove like a barge and, again, lacked the simple grace and elegance of its early ’60’s ancestors. Excellent photos and an excellent article.
The 1969-70 Cadillacs do seem cheaper than cars from earlier in the decade.
But, as GM taketh away, GM also giveth. The 1969-70 models had power front disc brakes and variable-ratio power steering as standard equipment, and the body shell and chassis, which dated to the 1965 model year, had the bugs worked out of them. (The 1965 and 1966 models, in particular, had been plagued with squeaks and rattles.)
This was all powered by a buttery-smooth, grenade-proof drivetrain.
The 1969-70 models did look cheaper on the inside, but I’m willing to bet that they drove better than their immediate predecessors. Also remember that ALL car makers were removing brightwork from the dashboard, while adding extra padding and blacking out much of the trim, during the late 1960s in response to Nader’s safety crusade. Cadillac wasn’t the only car afflicted with cheaper interiors in 1969 and 1970.
My Uncle Jack had a 1963 hardtop sedan in Briar Rose, with a white interior. to me the ’61-’62 models and the ’65-67 models both looked more athletic, than the offerings for ’63-’64. which look just a bit too nouveau riche for my taste.
I hated the color, but the car represented a step up from our 1967 Country Squire when I got a ride.
“Also remember that ALL car makers were removing brightwork from the dashboard, while adding extra padding and blacking out much of the trim, during the late 1960s in response to Nader’s safety crusade…”
This is why I like later GM interiors. It is my own bias, since I was teen in late 70’s. And I agree about roadability, versus just looks. Rather have disc brakes, handling, and radial tires, than a dangerous metal dash.
I’m totally biased to the 66’s, having nearly grown up in my dad’s 66 Fleetwood. He let me sit on his lap and steer starting at age 5. To this day, it’s the only car that steers “right” to me.
61-62 never look like Cadillacs to me. I know they are, but every time I see one, my first thought is Buick. Nice cars all, but no continuity from what came before or after, for me.
I’ve had a 60 coupe, a 64 coupe, I currently have a 66 Calais and a 66 DeVille convertible. All were / are great cars, even the 64 which was a total beater. Imagine a hardtop version of Jack’s convertible in the movie 48 hours. Sappnin’, Lutha?
To me, the 70’s started in 67 with the new interiors. Gone were the nice materials, the real clock, the chrome. 66 was the last year for a real piece of art in front of you. And a great steering wheel. Not that I don’t like the look of the 67’s and 68’s, the bodies are still gorgeous. But the interiors are 70’s Broughamsteins.
I’ll take a 66 Eldorado convertible over any other Cadillac, but there are so many close seconds. All would be in the 55-66 range.
Has anyone seen the movie “Shag”? The main characters drive to Myrtile Beach, SC for an end of school celebration, ostensibly in the summer of 1963. However, they take one of the girls mother’s ’64 Cadillac de Ville convertible. Similar dark red to the 2-door seen here behind the tree.
What a great car. It looked fantastic with the 3 high-school girls cruising Myrtle Beach, SC.
I love the 4 Window Hardtop that was new for ’62.
You see it on tons of ’63 and ’64s. A much svelter look as opposed to the 6-Window wich was slightly more formal or stogy even.
Any Cad ’66 or older is a real gem, I’ve had a bunch of ’em.
Special thanks to psfm for the linc of that amazing ’61 factory custom!
It really is cool that Each 2 years from 57-70 , a New Cadillac, All the odd numbered years thru 71…
As For My Favorites ;
1970-love to drive these.
1965-new
1963- best quality
`1959 -if i could only pick one
1960- classier looking that 59,-swan tailts
1969- deville conv, or 60 special
1958= eldorado brougham
I would agree it is probably the best of the 60’s….especially the convertible 63 Coupe Deville. I still prefer the mid 50’s styling though. It just seems to hold up a little more and scream “classic”. Not too big, not too small…..
As many others here have already stated, I also consider the last REAL “Standard of the World” Cadillac is the 1966 Fleetwood. It was an honest-to-gosh Rolls Royce contender. The wood inside was genuine, and there was lots of it! The leather was on the entire seat, not just where you placed your bum. The only thing less exclusive is that there were more of them than there were Rolls Royces. For some dumb reason, instead of keeping it a Standard of the World, the real wood trim dimished to nearly nothing by 1970, and starting in 1971, it was replaced by acres of plastic made to look like wood, and continued until the late 90’s which didn’t help separate it from its lesser bretheren. And I believe some of it is still fake on the new models. Cadillac foolishly abandoned the high end market just because of its expected low volume nature. No wonder sales of Mercedes Benz S-series and BMW 7-series went UP,and in the interest of volume, Cadillac didn’t care to notice or do anything about it. And by going ‘corporate’ with the J-car made into a Cadillac, it only ruined the Cadillac image to the point where they are still struggling to recover. Of course, the (mis)fortunes of the parent company havn’t helped, either. At the other end of the scale Cadillac was also trying to get away with was building a full-size car in the 90’s that handled as well as a 1938 Ford in the corners. Someone forgot to tell managment that generation was almost all dead.
Absolutely agree, and I’d put the ’63 ahead of the ’64 – much prefer the cleaner fins and flatter front of the earlier cars. One of my earliest car memories is of neighbors who had a his and her set of ’64 DeVilles – a Sedan for the Doctor, a Coupe for his wife.
The Sixty Special is my favorite of all of these, truly an impressive and well-built car.
While there were high points to follow, like the aforementioned ’66 Sixty Special + Brougham, ’65 was the real turning point. Why GM abandoned the tried and true senior brand model structure of a solid volume seller, an upscale mid-level series, and a true luxury top-end series, and replaced it with a low price stripper strategy with the Calais – the Cadillac Biscayne – is beyond me.
Yes! I absolutely believe that the ’63 and ’64 Cadillac were the greatest ever. I would rather have a nice, light-color hardtop Sedan deVille OR a Fleetwood 60 Special from either of these years… than any other car…. including a Duesenberg or twelve-cylinder Packard. Mr. Jason Edge of North Carolina might agree… and I know that Maurice Hendry definitely would!
The ’63 and ’64 Cadillacs had high quality, performance, and styling that had a certain ‘Roman nobility’ about ’em: especially when viewed ‘head-on’.