Something a bit different; two CCs of some note given their locations, one outside a used car trader on a British industrial estate and the other on a side street in a French town, slightly off the beaten track. Both top of their ranges, both dark red and both considered by at least some of their compatriot owners –and would be owners– as being as good as a car could be. Best car in the world, as it was hailed in some of the British press? Or the Standard of the World, as its maker declared?
First, the similarities, apart from the dark red paint. Clearly, both are their makers’ pinnacle offerings, and you could argue they are more contemporaneous than first impressions might guide you. The Cadillac is a 1970 De Ville. The Daimler is a Series III, a 1980s car in this case, but the 1979 Series III was clearly derivative of the earlier Series II and Series I. There weren’t many (any) other V12 saloons in 1972 when the first V12 versions of Jaguar XJ6 Series I and Daimler Sovereign models were shown, under the model names of XJ12 and Double Six.
Just two years after our Cadillac, and the major obvious differentiator with the Series I was the higher, squarer roof profile, by Pininfarina, on the William Lyons shaped body. A 1968 car with the engine from 1972 with a 1979 roof and a heavily revised interior, if you’re being brief and a bit unkind.
So, broadly contemporary; but one a convertible, one a saloon. But there was also a Cadillac De Ville sedan and a Jaguar XJ-S coupe on a shorter version of the saloon floorpan, which also came in a couple of convertible forms over the years.
Size wise, there was a big difference — the Cadillac at 225 inches was 30 inches longer than the Jaguar, as well as 10 inches wider (79 inches plays 69 inches). It doesn’t take long to realise that much of this difference is style driven — 2.5 inches were added to the Cadillac front clip in 1969 purely for style for example. The wheelbase, perhaps a more accurate guide to interior space, is longer by 17 inches. Styling is always a personal taste; many will prefer the Daimler’s more compact and less imposing presence, but if you prefer the Cadillac’s well-executed and unambiguous statement, then enjoy.
Power levels were also discrepant — 375 bhp gross for the Cadillac, 266 bhp net for the Daimler. Detroit was more generous on torque too, with 525 ftlb against 290 ftlb for the Jaguar V12 HE (High Efficiency, post 1981) 5.3 litre engine. Factor in the weight, and the net/gross adjustment and the power to weight ratios are a lot closer. In a straight line, the cars were pretty evenly matched, with the Daimler ultimately faster at 150 mph.
Underneath, things are more different. The Daimler had a complex (too complex for some) V12, using chain driven overhead camshafts with an aluminium block and matched to a Borg Warner automatic gearbox. Getting it all under the bonnet was squeeze — a V12 only cross flow radiator was used along with two cooling fans and a relief valve in the fuel lines to manage vapour locks. Not many cars need a cooling fan just for the battery… Suspension was by double wishbones at the front and Jaguar’s classic independent rear suspension, pioneered on the E Type, complete with inboard rear disc brakes.
The Cadillac was inevitably simpler — 7.7 litres of V8 (in this example) with the TH400 transmission, and front disc brakes from 1968.
Round the corners there would be little contest, at least when new. The Daimler may not have been the ultimate compact sports saloon but it wasn’t the Cadillac, with a lot of roll and pitch. If you’re driving from London to Paris for lunch, then the Daimler would probably suit better. If you’re crossing Arizona and Nevada for dinner, I can see the attraction of the Cadillac. Taking it round the Arc de Triomphe and parking outside the restaurant might be more of a challenge though.
The interiors offer more contrast – the Cadillac could perhaps claim six seater capability, the Daimler couldn’t and wouldn’t try. It was really a four seater, and whilst still a product of British Leyland and not built like either a Rolls-Royce or a Mercedes-Benz, could offer an interior, in terms of style, materials and (arguably) craftmanship that was a step up from the Cadillac.
The Cadillac seems to offer width for three in the front, and maybe in the back as well, but with a very different style and more regular quality materials.
So which is it to be? The more compact, outside and inside, Daimler, with the higher interior material quality and less brash style matched to a more sophisticated drive train and suspension, or the more in your face Cadillac, with a larger interior for four, immense road presence and less of an enthusiast’s driving experience? One of each? Neither, and go for a Jaguar XJS Convertible or De Ville Sedan instead?
Perhaps, like many teams, each plays best at home?
There is no accounting for taste. Thus, both vehicles found their market niches. I love the elegance of the Jaguar. I could enjoy the Cadillac except that it is a boat with much wasted on fore and aft. The length would have been better utilized for interior room.
I’ll have one of each, please. I like “presence” in a car, and each one has it, though in different flavors.
Great comparison – both were the apex cars of their particular worlds at the time they were built.
I wonder how many wealthy North Americans, who owned Cadillacs in the 1970s, later switched to Jaguar Series III cars? And later on, after tiring of Cadillac’s slipping prestige and Jaguar’s questionable quality, bought Lexuses for the rest of their lives.
While I can appreciate the Cadillac, mostly from afar, I would have to go with the Daimler. And wouldn’t even need the V12 and its likely headaches, so a regular Jaguar XJ6 would do just fine for either the jaunt from London to Paris or the one across Nevada and Arizona assuming it’s not done on a 120 degree day (or 108 degree night) but would be at a far higher rate of speed than likely comfortable or prudent in the Cadillac. Just the thought of Tawny Kitaen doing her gymnastics on the hood would keep me awake enough for the distance while Whitesnake blasted on the stereo. God bless David Coverdale. I need a moment….
Ah yes, where was I…As a came-of-ager in the 80s the XJ (this generation) shape simply works and holds up styling-wise. Sure the shape was kept for a long time, but Jaguar has mostly lost the plot since giving up on that general form. As a bonus my most recent health checkup revealed that my stature has been shrinking somewhat, so while my 32′ inseam could likely be happy both in the front and rear, the advantage is that I require about an inch less headroom these days which opens up new worlds of possibilities.
Thank you Roger for this delightful pairing.
Interesting. Both have demonstrable benefits. The Cadillac has familiarity, reliability, serviceability and utility (lots of interior and luggage space, can tow a comfortable house trailer or boat).
The Daimler offers a luxurious, intimate experience, and possibly decent handling and almost certainly easier to park and manoeuver in tight places.
Sounds a lot like my current garage. The 2012 F-150 offers living room comfort, but in tight places it is an aircraft carrier in a sport boat marina. The 2018 Fusion has seats far too close to the ground, nominal foot space, and a generally cramped demeanor for my extensive extremities. The mail slot trunk would be better if the car were actually the hatchback the styling suggests. But, it is fuel efficient and can squirt quickly through city traffic while looking quite stylish.
I like both vehicles in the article and my garage. But, neither is just right as a practical matter. And that’s what makes them appealing, you get style that doesn’t remind you of a work van, and capability and prowess that doesn’t remind you of a work van.
I’ll take both. Mighty familiar territory.
.
I’ll take one of each please! haha.
Actually, I kind of had each in the past. The oldest car I’ve ever owned was a 1967 Cadillac Coupe DeVille. It would end up being one of the largest cars I’ve ever owned as well and I’ve had a few big cars over the years. I’ve also owned a 1989 Jaguar XJ6 in white with blue leather and no sunroof!! Too bad rust was getting the best of it and it had some electrical issues (really, go figure). I traded that one on a 1996 Jaguar XJ6 in BR green with tan leather. No rust and that car was fantastic. Of the three, I’d have to take the green 1996 Jag. As a side note however, I’ve also owned several first gen Cadillac Seville’s (both 1979’s) and that would be a true match (IMO) to the same era Jags. But my all-time favorite Caddy would have to be the 1989 Seville STS in pearl white with tan leather. I would choose that over nearly anything else I’ve owned including the several MB from the late 60’s and late 80’s. Too bad I was stupid and sold that STS to a guy in Florida who is a collector and he still has it today.
Neither come close to that which they aspire to be.
The Caddy is a really beautiful object, but the size is silly and the dynamics, inept. It is only the standard of A world, an infinitely-resourced one of straight-ahead travel, which isn’t most of the planet. But it is something I would keep upon a plinth to admire as an object d’art, (presuming there was a plinth of size available).
The Jag too is beautiful, arguably moreso, and its oft-stated claims to being the best-looking production sedan ever are not outrageous at all. It is a more normal size, and dynamically, it wins entirely (though it will also use near-enough as much petrol as the Caddy, and in a speed-limited world, isn’t meaningfully faster, or smoother). But it too is ultimately silly, and I would have it too upon a plinth for admiring instead of driving, because it WILL break, which means it cannot be the world’s best.
They can thus both sit in pretty stasis on my plinths, whilst a Lexus LS400 – just ten years on from the Jag – for use in actual motoring, wins in both categories with devasting totality.
Neither come close to that which they aspire to be.
The Caddy is a really beautiful object, but the size is silly and the dynamics, inept. It is only the standard of A world, an infinitely-resourced one of straight-ahead travel, which isn’t most of the planet. But it is something I would keep upon a plinth to admire as an object d’art, (presuming there was a plinth of size available).
The Jag too is beautiful, arguably moreso, as its claims to being the best-looking production sedan ever are not outrageous at all. It is a more normal size, and dynamically, it wins entirely (though it will also use near-enough as much petrol as the Caddy, and in a speed-limited world, isn’t meaningfully faster, or smoother). But it too is ultimately silly, and I would have it too upon a plinth for admiring instead of driving, because it WILL break, which means it cannot be the world’s best.
They can thus both sit in pretty stasis on my plinths, whilst a Lexus LS400 – just ten years on from the Jag – for use in actual motoring, wins in both categories with devasting totality.
As beautiful as the Daimler is I prefer a car that starts and proceeds with reliability. I’ll go for the gaudy Cadillac.
I do love the name “double six”.
CraiginNC in his ‘GM lost its mojo’ piece says “he liked GM when they built cars that looked like GM cars.” And, “GM cars always looked distinctive and unique.” Included in the cars that he said looked like GM cars were the ’77 downsized B and C bodies. Yet these cars- Cadillac included- were derived from a Pininfarina designed Jaguar prototype which never went into production. So here we have a potential kinship between a GM car and British car, midwifed by an Italian design house. IMO if GM had stuck with Pininfarina for the next round of downsizing, the cars would have had a certain distinctive Italian/American flair that would have competed very well with their Japanese and German (and British) counterparts.
These cars have to be seen in the context of where and for which markets they were created. Thus – for me at least – there is no question which one I’d rather have, if I had to (don’t shoot me, but neither is “my” kind of car), here in Austria. The Daimler has its faults but I worked on them so only partly terrified of what’s involved – and it’s size is manageable on our narrow roads. Owning a Cadillac here would to me make zero sense. You would not enjoy it. However, put me in the US and I’d be mad to opt for the Daimler for that cross-continental drive, bearing in mind Jaguar’s reliability record, as well as the lack of parts at your local O’Reilly’s.
But I might change my mind if the Daimler’s engine had been swapped for a SBC or an LS…
Someone please clue me in: Why does that Daimler look exactly like a contemporary Jaguar?
Because it is a Jaguar with a Daimler grille and badges. In the UK, the top trim of the XJ used the Daimler name; in the US it was called the Vanden Plas.
Daimler and Jaguar had been co-owned for some years by then.
Thanks. If I owned it, i’d call it a “Duck” – know what I mean? 😉
Strictly sticking to these two examples, I would probably have to stick to the Caddy…not so much for national pride as for simple reliability history. Cadillac has had its ups and downs where reliability is concerned; but 1970, at least according to Consumer Reports of the time, was an up year. Jaguar has been more consistent with its reliability history…or, to be precise, lack thereof. The same Consumer Reports always declared Jags to be little more than elaborately-styled and elaborately-equipped Yugos. Yes, you read that right; I recall every yearly review of cars that Consumer Reports released, and Jags never fared any better than those pitiful Yugoslavian putt-putts that are now as extinct as their country of origin. The only real difference between those two cars is that Jaguar is still known, whereas people who do remember the Yugo don’t want to.
Of course, if options were expanded, being a Lincoln lover myself I think I’d pick a clap-door Lincoln over anything else…not just for the popular clap-door configuration, but also for its own history of quality control in construction, and its performance ratings being actually more closely matched to net power than any other car made at the same time.
For best sedan in the world at that time I’d have to go with a MB 6.3/6.9. Really a better car than either IMO, but I see that wasn’t an option.
Ne’er a fan of the huge domestic iron of the US, I suspect the Cad is still a better car than the big Jag, no matter what they called it. Probably not as fast, and who would want to go 150 in a barge like that anyway, but plenty fast enough to go to jail in for, shall we say, exercising it to it’s fullest. I think it would go far longer with far less upkeep. But if I had to choose which to drive myself, it would be the Jag in a heartbeat. Faster, better looking, better handing, but perhaps needing a riding mechanic to travel long distances. Both were products of their time, intended for vastly different markets and people.