The story of the fall of Cadillac from the Standard of the World to a slightly fancier Chevrolet is one of the defining arcs of 20th-century automotive history. As such, It has proven to be one of the favorite topics of Curbside Classic contributors and commenters alike over the years.
One of the enduring appeals of this tale is that it is impossible to pinpoint when the last “True Cadillac” was: The thousand cuts that slowly boiled the frog of Cadillac spanned decades, giving critics (and writers) countless toeholds to argue when precisely Cadillac jumped the shark. But ultimately this exercise is like trying to argue where exactly red turns to orange on a rainbow.
Still, I’m going to enter these muddy waters and lay down a marker using my own personal (and highly subjective) criteria – To me, the last true Cadillac would be the last year of Cadillac I personally find desirable and would be interested in owning. For me, that year would be 1970, the final year of the 1965-1970 generation. That would also be the model year of this Fleetwood Brougham I found at a car show this past summer. It was parked about 50 feet away from the 1970 Imperial that I wrote up a few days ago, and makes for an interesting contrast.
1961 Lincoln Continental
Thanks to the groundbreaking 1961 Lincoln Continental, luxury cars for much of the 1960s sported clean, crisp lines that belied their growing dimensions: Picture Lebron James wearing a well-tailored suit. The first break in the dam came from Lincoln (ironically the company that had started the styling revolution in 1961) in 1968 with the 1969 Continental Mark III.
By 1970, Lincoln (and to a lesser extent Imperial) were both going for baroque. However, we can still feel the last remaining vestiges of influence of the 1961 Continental in the sharp, creased lines and bladed fenders (both front and rear) of the featured 1970 Fleetwood. Yes, it was a large car (especially in Fleetwood form as shown here), but a finely tailored suit can visually slim down even the largest man.
1972 Cadillac Coupe deVille
As we all now know, many of these creases (especially on the front) would be sanded down on the rounded, more bloated 1971 Cadillac lineup. Gone were the chiseled lines and bladed front fenders of the 1970 model. In its place were bulbous curves which only served to emphasize the car’s girth. The finely tailored suit had given way to sweatpants.
But we’ve come here to praise the 1970 Cadillac, not to bury its successor.
First, a quick refresher to understand the Fleetwood Brougham’s place in the 1970 Cadillac Lineup, as the naming can be a bit confusing. The Fleetwood Brougham (and the virtually identical Series 60 Special) gave you an extra 3” or so of both length and wheelbase over the DeVille and Calais, all of it going to the back seat area. You also got a more formal roofline to ease entry and exit through those longer rear doors.
1970 Cadillac Fleetwood 75
Don’t confuse this Fleetwood Brougham with the similarly named Fleetwood 75: The Series 75 was the factory limousine, stretching out at a garage-busting 245.5” and riding on a massive 149.8” wheelbase. With a length of 228.5” and a wheelbase of 133”, the Fleetwood Brougham was still massive, but it could still plausibly be owner-driven, unlike the Fleetwood 75.
Yes, by 1970 plastics were already starting to creep into Cadillac’s interiors, but much of this was dictated as much by crash safety regulations as by cost-cutting. But in 1970, the worst of GM’s tupperware interiors were still comfortably far in the future. The condition of this example (inside and out) belies the indicated 71,760 miles, testifying to the overall quality that GM was still imbuing Cadillac with while cementing my claim to 1970 being the last true Cadillac.
Even by today’s standards, the back seat of this Fleetwood Brougham is a genuinely magnificent place to be. Compare this with the back seat of the 1970 Imperial LeBaron I wrote about a few days ago. While I didn’t check the body data plate, the interior fabric appears to be Medium Gold Dunbarton Cloth and Leather, a very 1970 color. The trademark Fleetwood fold-down carpeted rear footrests are of course present and accounted for.
1970 Cadillac Sedan deVille – Other than the roof line, can you spot the difference?
Those three extra inches of rear legroom in the Fleetwood Brougham came at a steep price, especially considering that except for a few badges, the Fleetwood was minimally differentiated from the rest of the Cadillac lineup.
While a 1970 Sedan deVille started out at $6,118 (about $50,000 in 2023), the Fleetwood Brougham 4-door sedan began at $7,284 ($59,000 adj.), an almost 20% premium over the SdV. By the time you threw in “options that should have been standard” like A/C, power seat, power door locks, tinted glass, and even an AM/FM radio, you were realistically looking at over $8,000 ($65,000 adj.). Despite that hefty premium, 16,913 Fleetwood Broughams (plus 1,738 Sixty Specials) found buyers in 1970, which I remind you was still 50% more than the total sales of the entire Imperial brand that year.
One of my gripes with the 1970 Imperial was its generic, uninspired back end. No such problem with Cadillac that year: There is an exactly 0% chance of mistaking the rear end of this Cadillac for anything but a Cadillac. Yes, the fender blades are fussy, but in 1970 they hadn’t quite become kitsch yet, although they would be soon.
Related Reading
Tom Klockau concurs that 1970 is the last true Cadillac
1970 may have been the “last true Cadillac” but the marque was already on the decline. Comparing my Dad’s 1966 Cadillac with his 1963, the slide toward being a “Big Chevy” was already evident.
I do agree, though: from 1970 to 1971 was a Great Leap Downward.
Did Cadillac move down, or did the other GM marques (and all the other companies as well) move up?
There is a reasonable argument that the quality of the “lower rung” vehicles and the available options for them went up. There was a time where you could only get special items on a Cadillac. Badge engineering was not a thing. Cadillac designers and engineers only worked for Cadillac products. Development (and related costs) was not shared for many major components, but then it changed. GM started sharing design and costs among all the brands, which had the effect of bringing the lower tier brands up while bringing the lower tier down. Perceived quality went down for the upper and up for the lower. What that led to was not so much a gussied up Chevy posing as a Cadillac as a decontented Cadillac posing as a Chevy, if you choose to think that way. The goods used to make a Chevy or a Cadillac are pretty much the same, and you can easily find similarly optioned models for each make that mirror the other brand with only minor differences. So why pay more for the same thing, save for the badge?
In this argument, the lower quality brands got so much better that the luxury version was more similar than not. Perceived value for the badge and dealer experience counts more than the engineering when considering purchasing such a product. Does a BMW 7 ride any less well than a Rolls of similar platform? Does that Escalade do anything different than a Yukon? Does any brand offer a unique vehicle, or just something comparable to another model offered in another brand’s catalogue? Exclusivity used to define luxury, not price, although high prices usually accompanied exclusivity. Now, just charging a higher price seems to define what is luxury or not.
Having owned a ’65 Sedan De Ville back in college around 1974 and driven it cross country, I would respectfully disagree. It was a magnificent beast and its design and interior finishes (leather) etc was similar to the 1961-1964 iteration as far as I was concerned. Nonetheless the point remains well taken.
As some folks have noted in the past, what exactly has gotten better in cars except safety, electronics and reliability. Certainly not design. Toasters on wheels are just toasters. 🙂
One thing I’ve noticed, with GM’s big cars in general, it seemed like there was a slow decline in quality every time a new body came out. The 1965 models seemed like a slight step downward, compared to 1964. And even though the 1967 models were more of a heavy restyle, than an all-new design, they still felt a bit cheapened.
I can’t comment on the ’69-70 vs ’67-68, but then for 1971, it seemed like the attitude was “Oh, you think we can’t make ’em any cheaper? Hold my beer and watch THIS!!”
To be fair though, I wonder if part of the decline had to do with safety regs. Those older interiors, with more exposed real metal and chrome and such, had a higher quality look to them, although they were more dangerous. But when they started moving to plastic knobs and other bits and pieces, more padding here and there, it often led to a cheaper looking car.
For me, personally, I also see 1971 as a big drop off for Cadillac, because I look at the ’69-70 style, and think they’re drop-dead gorgeous. But then for 1971, I’d really rather have a Buick (Electra, that is). The Cadillac for ’71 got a bit too pretentious and showy for my tastes, whereas the Electra seemed upscale, without trying so hard, if that makes sense? The ’71 Electra also seems a bit more youthful to me, although with this type of car, that might be like comparing Rue McClanahan to Betty White!
One thing that just jogged my memory, although I could be wrong. But didn’t the Fleetwood have little tray tables that folded into the seatbacks at one time? The one in the pic doesn’t appear to have them, although the little footrests are still a nice touch.
The rear tray tables were only on the ’66 and ’67. The ’68 had big storage envelopes.
I agree, 1970 was the final year. What a good taste car. And compared to today’s cars prices it was a bargain!
The 60 Special non-Brougham didn’t have rear footrests or vinyl roof. 1970 was its last year, likewise the pillared lower sedans until ’77.
It’s been many years since I could compare my grandmother’s ’70 and ’72 Calais, but my opinion at the time (and hers) was that the ’72 was nicer inside, contrary to conventional wisdom. However, that may have been due to the larger windows, yellow color instead of completely and very black, and the more normal binnacle and seat height. I saw the invoice recently, it was just over $8k. The infamous 70s inflation started early.
The tumblehomed, retro ’71 exterior was a big comedown. 1977+ Cadillacs at least had better fake wood than the ’71-6, but even more plastichrome.
Despite relatively low miles, her ’64 Series 62 gave her significant mechanical trouble, leading to its sale, but I don’t remember what, as we were 3,000 miles away. I wish she’d kept it, and she liked it better than the ’70.
I rode a couple of times in a neighbor’s ’70 Fleetwood in ’73. It wasn’t nearly as smooth and quiet as the tired ’74 Fleetwood I had in the 80s. It could have been the tires.
Problems with ’64s were not unheard of, in the Cadillac-LaSalle club the 390 is considered the better engine than the 429 of ’64, which did have some issues, corrected in the later 472, again a more respected mill, that is until the chocked-down 500 version. The only Cads I owned were a ’47 60S with the big flathead 346, and a ’75 Sed De V will the 500 which for a giant engine really suffered from emission controls. The ’47 had more guts!
Amen. Plus the last gorgeous Cadillacs. 69s and 70s are among my favorites.
I always image a luxury vehicle having a leather interior.
I long for the days when the color matched the paint.
In fact, I do miss the bordello red of the past.
It made a statement!!
Leather was mostly for chauffeurs and open cars until the mid 70s, when Cadillac changed to softer, thinner leather. True luxury is not worrying about spots on the upholstery.
Interesting question to ponder. I feel that the 1965-70 generation could legitimately be called the Last True Cadillac, though for me the cutoff would be a bit earlier than 1970.
Cadillac used to hold claim to being the preferred car of Captains of Industry, and generally of the successful classes. I can see the ’65 models still holding this torch, but by 1970, the car was beginning to become a caricature of itself. That transformation took a much bigger leap in ’71, but I’d say that by 1970 the writing was on the walls.
I still love these in retrospect, but I can’t help but looking at Cadillacs of this vintage and thinking how the brand was now past its prime.
By the way, I’m loving all of these recent 1970s luxury car articles. This past weekend I photographed a 1978 New Yorker, which I’m beginning to write up, so the topic of 1970s American luxury cars is certainly on my mind.
One little nit to pick: The picture captioned “1971 Sedan de Ville” is actually a ’72. The ’71 had turn signals in the bumper.
It’s also a Coupe de Ville in the post.
This seems right to me. While GM had been engaging in some cost-cutting mischief in regards to interior materials quality from 1965 through 1970, it was also making worthwhile mechanical upgrades. Beginning in 1969, power front disc brakes and variable-ratio power steering became standard equipment. And, in response to government mandates, several beneficial safety features were added (for example, a collapsible steering column).
The 472 V-8 was an excellent engine, and the Turbo-Hydramatic automatic transmission and Cadillac HVAC system were world-class. And GM’s power assists – windows, seats, door locks – were reliable during this era, something that could not always be said of the competition, foreign or domestic.
The 1971 models experienced another round of cost-cutting when it came to interior materials, and the bodies were much more willowy than the 1965-70 generation.
One minor quibble – the Continental Mark III debuted in early calendar year 1968, not 1967. It was officially a 1969 model.
D’oh, and I even owned a Mark III at one point. I’ve corrected the text for this and the other issues. Can’t put anything past this bunch!
Minor thing you probably already knew, but didnt change, 1965 was the start of this run, not 1966. To me, 1964 was the last year that didnt share too much with the big Buick and Olds.
As far as the slab sided Caddies, I think my favorite is the 1965 hard top .
I like the looks, dash board and overall quality of my 1970 Fleetwood Hearse too, I know these were a product of their time, styles are always changing .
-Nate
One of those rare cars forever immortalized in song. . .
Great band. Love me some Tractors. Pretty much sums it all up lol 🙂
For me the last true Cadillac would be 1979.
Well to weigh in I always liked the lines of the 69-70 chiseled / sharp lines as we had a 69 Fleetwood & my uncle had a 70 convertible Me a 70 Eldorado ( first year 500 ) 71-74 eldos got to bubbly rounded & fat But did like the 75-76 did not care for the back of the 77-78s Yes the 70 sedan de ville HT had get lines ! But the end of real caddys was the downsized 77s ! Now that was a Chevy as all the undercarriage you could beef-up with SS impala parts The chassis was the same from 77-96 And 70s had no smog pumps in the 49 states ! CA. put pumps on in 66 ! 71s started EGR valves & dropped compression that lowered HP & cars got heavier ! that was the end of performance
I much prefer the look of the ’71 and ’72s. They look lower and cleaner in my opinion. The ’70 looks to blocky and truck like. The ’70 Imperial is a much better looking car I think even though it’s just a dressed up Plymouth Fury
I think we’re both in the minority but I agree, there’s nothing wrong with the styling of the 71-72s, materials and quality control not withstanding. The bladed fenders of the 69-70 looked too stately, it worked when they contained stacked headlights but these just look transitional
I personally think GM did all of the B- and E-bodies a disservice with the 1971 redesigns, all of which grew larger and more bloated-looking.
Cadillac made a conscious decision to chase volume instead of moving up to a higher price/exclusivity level in the mid-’60s, when incomes were increasing, along with the sales of Mercedes. In 1964, Cadillac moved 166k units; in 1970, it was 239k units; that’s a whopping 44% increase.
Increased volume and reduced material quality allowed them to keep prices relatively low. The prestige value of a Cadillac sank steadily during this period (1965-1970), while Mercedes sales increased steadily. In places like California, a Mercedes 200D had more prestige value than a Cadillac, which were now affordable to just about anyone.
That’s what sank Cadillac, as this trend continued largely unbroken until Cadillac was broken.
My very first CC was a detailed look at these issues; wage growth (and later stagnation) and the relative affordability of a Cadillac at the time:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1972-cadillac-coupe-deville-a-beginning-as-well-as-the-beginning-of-the-end/
Very true! One puzzler is this: During this period, GM operations were becoming more and more centralized and the Divisions were losing autonomy. It would be expected that management of the Cadillac Division would be looking to grow sales at the expense of other Divisions. But I would have expected GM’s central committee to want a significant presence in the high end of the market and to have the power to enforce such a priority. And yet, the opposite happened. My theory is that management-by-accountant (which prized cost cutting and component sharing) swamped management-by-product.
I don’t think divisional autonomy was crimped in this period (1964-1970). DeLorean pretty much confirms that in his book. The Vega was a bit of an outlier, as it was a totally new development.
Cadillac execs, like all automotive execs, saw the gold mine from larger volumes. Undoubtedly there must have been a time around 1964 or so where Cadillac actually invested in more production facilities, which would have set the course to utilize them more fully.
The other issue is that in order for Cadillac to have really gone upmarket, they would have pretty much had to break away from the existing mold, sharing body shells and chassis with other divisions. The way the market was going, they would have had to essentially create a new higher-end car. They did consider that apparently, as the V12 from the late ’60s was intended to be used in a higher priced car, not the standard Cadillac.
The large investment and limited volumes of doing so must have been the reason they didn’t. And presumably they thought the ’67 Eldorado might fulfill some of that role. Which it didn’t really.
I already offered my suggestions for what they might have done. But did they listen? 🙂
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/alternate-history/automotive-alter-history-1965-cadillac-seville-the-car-that-beat-back-mercedes-and-became-a-global-best-seller/
Nice article, Tom. And very interesting what-if, Paul. Perhaps a marriage of the Sixty Special and Opel idea, in the form of the ’65-67 Buick Sportwagon’s 5-inch longer wheelbase and rear doors applied to the Skylark sedan, could have led to a mid-sized Cadillac that gave Americans something they valued highly: rear legroom.
Very sharp car. You can keep the brocade cloth seats, though. That stirs up memories of grandma’s hideous living room couch—you know, the one that left a pattern on the side of your face if you had the misfortune of falling asleep on it.
The quality of all GM marques hardly went up over the decade of the ’60s.
For me the last Standard of The World Cadillac was undoubtedly the 1964.
The ’65-65s were a tiny slip, the ’67-68s a bit more so, and ’69-70s trying too hard for formality suffered yet another diminishment in quality and imo much cheesier styling, then the ’71s fell off a cliff. Crappy plastic fender and bumper extensions and seams were just one symptom, and a floppy chassis and bean-counting quality didn’t help. The ’68 model year is the last Cad I’d want to own but the ’61 to ’64s are the model years I’d be truly proud to drive.
I think almost everyone agrees that the 1964 models were still of the first rank and that by the 1971s the fat lady was singing. In between, the devil is in the details. I can definitely see the case for the 1970, but I nudge slightly to 1968 as the last Cadillac I really want. Part of that is styling, and I think the interiors were of higher quality than the 69-70 cars, at least somewhat.
I actually really like the styling of the 1971-72 cars – I think they were recalling some earlier styling themes, like the torpedo-shaped rear fenders of the 1942-47 models and that heavy front fender ridge from the early 50’s. And mechanically, the early 70s models were still first class, with a suspension that made the cars handle surprisingly well.
Everyone knows how I feel about this model of Cadillac. It was big, but it felt like a personal car when you were behind the wheel. I suppose that my comparison would be to the EL Dorado and Rivieras that I had later. I did love the blade fenders and the quarter panels that stood proud as fins.
I’m pretty sure that my current F150 long bed is at least as long as this Fleetwood, and a couple of inches more than my ’70 Coupe. I used to drive my truck as an every day vehicle when it was new, and still don’t have any problem parking it now. So, big is big, but it’s smaller than a tractor trailer combo, and those things go everywhere.
I think it’s a great shame that Chrysler’samagment didn’t have more vision for the Imperial brand. 1961, they lost their only standalone assembly plant. By 1970, the will to continue had almost passed. By the management having such a black of vision, it may have cost a lot of jobs.
I prefer more rounded styling, the 70 seems to be styled like these new trucks with massive grills, jagged sharp lines and boxy shapes
My father owned a ’70 Cadillac DeVille since ’72 I can tell you the reliability of the ’70 is second to none. Not to mention, an absolute powerhouse to drive. When I drove ’72 on, they felt sluggish in comparison.
It’s absolutely true that there was a tremendous drop in quality beginning with the 1971 Collanade body models. They grew wider and bloated and they added tin into their metallic mix in the rear quarter panels which resulted in fast rusting in the top areas behind the rear windows in the back where the windows connected with the trunk lids and the bottoms of the quarter panels rusted out behind the rear wheels in only a few years. Beyond that the chassis weren’t as solid as the 65-70 models which were the most successful full sized cars in history. They quivered and there was a steering wheel shake over bumps that only the Buicks didn’t experience because they had an extra brace at the bottom of the steering wheel column to eliminate the shake. Both Caddy and Buick employed braces atop the engine compartments attached to the fenders to reduce shaking but they were never as stable as their immediate predecessors on the road.
Also this was the era when cheap plastics entered the interiors en mass and the quality of the plastics on the door panels and dashboards was just awful. They crack easily and they rattled and squeaked. Also the door straps and handles frequently broke off from normal use. The plastics weren’t sorted out yet.
After this 1970 model Cadillac I switched my American luxury car allegiance to Lincoln for 1971.
When Cadillac got rid of the fins they were just another puffy GM brand with a cheap look! To much plastic and velour.
Anything good that came out later was quickly lost in the shuffle of profits.
One thing is overlooked by all and it’s the devastating effect the strike of 1970 had on GM. They lost a billion dollars. The designs of 1971 were actually intended for later and the 1969-1970 styling was supposed to last longer.
I hated and still hate the 1971 models.
Personally I feel that Cadillac lost it in fits and starts. Engineering not withstanding in the DeVille line it ended with the 1984 model. In the Brougham 1992 was it. I own a 1968 DeVille convertible and a 1992 Brougham.
GM has used Cadillac styling cues on Chevrolets since the 30s.. It’s called marketing. GM has also used “lesser” brands’ engineering and chassis in Cadillacs since then, just not Chevrolets. Shared chassis with Chevrolet started in 1977..
1977 would be a far better year to argue for the cutoff point, but I have a 78 Coupe DeVille, and, sir, it is no Chevrolet. It is a true successor to Cadillacs before it, with it’s smooth and quiet ride, LUXURIOUS interior and torquey, quiet and smooth bespoke Cadillac 425ci V8. It just gets better gas milage.
How the hell can you not mention the 70-79 Lincoln Continental as a “folded, chiseled and creased” successor to the 61 Continental??
The point of your article is illogical, arbitrary and ignorant, and I stopped reading it after the callow take on “sanded and rounded off body lines”.
Go back to car school, your argument is dismissable.
I’ve had 29 Cadillacs going back to 46 including first frame off in America of 47 conv and 57 Eldo Biarritz conv and new Seville in 76 and front wheel drive 73 conv Eldo and many 60’s sedans and converts and last 89 brougham delegance. Last true Caddy was 66 after that interior trim full of plastic. I felt the 89 was a good attempt and got over 20 mpg.