Chris Cieslak and I are continuing on our collaboration on the changing shape of cars. Today’s subject is the big Cadillac. What a curious coincidence that both the 1959 Cadillac and the current Escalade ESC have the same 130″ wheelbase, 225/224″ length, and 80/81″ width. The only significant difference is in their height.
And just how much difference is there in their height? Twenty inches (54.3″ vs. 74″). And in their interior space? I don’t have a handy answer, but let’s just say a lot more than just the extra headroom. No wonder the Escalade and its siblings have become the VIP transport of choice.
I wonder what kind of fuel consumption in an EPA test cycle would result from packaging the Escalade’s powertrain in the old, smaller frontal area body, with no other aerodynamic improvements. Maybe throw in modern underbody airflow management and low rolling resistance tires in the appropriate size to fit the ‘59’s wheelwells. Allow a weight change to reflect the Escalade’s technology in both powertrain and structure. Obviously power required for a given steady speed is linearly proportional to frontal area, but with 10 speed transmissions, cylinder deactivation, variable valve timing, start-stop and other modern tricks, overall fuel consumption is dependent on many factors.
A 2020 Camaro with the 6.2 L V8 and automatic is rated at 20 combined (16/27). It undoubtedly has better aerodynamics than the ’59. So maybe 18 or so?
The 2021 RWD Escalade is 15/20/17 EPA city/highway/combined. I guess that shows how the frontal area affects highway mpg when compared with the Camaro. Cadillac seems like a manufacturer that might benefit from a retro model; I think even younger buyers are more likely to associate the name with a big finned boat, than with edgy sport sedans (of course the ‘Slade comes first). Use the Suburban platform to launch it, then electrify it. The anti-Tesla style wise, but similar technology.
For the first time ever, fifth-generation Escalade (2021–present) has a Duramax diesel engine option: a 3-litre six inline putting out 277 horsepowers and 460 pounds-feet. The fuel consumption for 2WD Escalade is excellent: 21 mpg city, 27 mpg highway, and 23 mpg combined.
The best deal is when optioning this diesel engine does not incur additional premium over the standard engine option as it is often with German marquees. Let’s see if the Cadillac buyers would opt for diesel engines in greater number than the buyers did in the past.
Mind . . . blown! Where’s Harley Earl when you need him? I’d like to hear his comment on this.
Would like to see a ’30 Cadillac 4-door sedan over the Escalade.
In medieval Europe, being fat was a sign of wealth. It showed that you could afford to (over) eat. American luxury cars from this period were effectively the same thing. A fat car showed the world that you could afford to overindulge.
I’m not seeing the logic, as the Ecalade is obviously much more obese than the ’59. As are its drivers, on average.
And FWIW, a ’59 Chevy Biscayne was almost identically “fat” as the ’59 Caddy.
I can’t disagree, but while the Escalade is more obese, the use of space is more efficient, i.e. you can transport 7 people instead of 6 (I think the middle seat is a 3-person bench) and probably still have more usable luggage space.
And yes, you’re right about the Biscayne. Perhaps I should strike the word “luxury” from my comment. But in 1959 working/middle class Americans were far wealthier than their counterparts from the prior 2 decades or more.
I can see where you’re coming from Evan, and there is a certain logic to it. But it’s not quite that simple (is anything?)
Up until ’59 when all the GM brands used the same body, your comment would sort of apply. But even before the war, the average American car was way bigger than the average anywhere else. And car ownership was way more common too. Off the top of my head I would think that was probably a combination of cheap gas, having a lot of space around you in cities (compared with Europe) and long distances to travel. And other factors I can’t think of so early in the morning.
But growing up, we always thought all Americans were rich – look at the size of their cars! So I’m sorta with you, but America has changed!
The Biscayne was about the same width and height, sharing the same basic body structure, but the Cadillac was about fifteen inches longer and 1400 pounds heavier.
Yep. The ‘59 de Ville weighed 4,840 pounds, while the Escalade weighs 1,000 pounds more. It’s really a testament to modern vehicle technology that the Escalade is far quicker, handles better, much safer and gets better mileage at 1,000 pounds more.
WOW.
Agree with Poindexter. It would be interesting to mix this with a Caddy from 1930, before Mr Earl’s constant preaching of GET IT DOWN started to take effect. The wheelbase would be the same and the wheel height would be about the same as the new one. The overhang would be much less unless the trunk rack was carrying a steamer trunk. I think the overall height would be less than the new one.
Both the ’30 and the Escalade have vertical-space-robbing ladder frames, the ’59’s X-frame at least allowed lowness with a reasonable (outboard) floor-to-ceiling height even if it was suboptimal compared to a perimeter frame let alone a unit body.
The Escalade (and Tahoe/Suburban/Yukon) is basically locked into its’ ladder frame, a perimeter frame wouldn’t be cost effective without the pickups to further amortize it; using a unibody and splitting the gain evenly between floor-to-ceiling and lowering OAH would be ideal from an engineering standpoint, but it would risk giving up a USP and being seen as “less than”.
Which Cadillac do you think would ride better?
I would not hesitate to ride in the ’30. I would not want to
be seen in the “Laid”.
The Escalade. Unless you’re a fan of sea-sickness.
One would have to define “ride”. Sure, on a perfectly smooth road, the ’59 would be quite smooth indeed, but they utterly fall apart when challenged by anything else: a dip, curves, rougher road, etc. I’d suggest you read the snippet attached below from Road Test’s comparison of some ’65 big American cars. Here’s what they had to say about the Pontiac with its standard suspension. The ’59 Cadillac would have been as bad or more likely worse:
Apples to apples. Contemporary reviews of a ’59 Cadillac would reveal a mushy ride. Our original ’67 Fleetwood would scrub and howl around corners on its bias ply tires and recommended 22-26Psi inflation ratings. I’ve put on new radials (mostly Hankook Optimo’s) on a variety of ’68-76 Cadillac’s with 32-35psi inflation and newer gas charged shocks. They all ride a touch harder over tar strips etc., but can really corner decently and much better than original considering their age and condition. Try riding around in a new Escalade with bias ply tires inflated at 22 PSI to see how it handles for accurate comparison
Well, that’s with some good tires and modern shocks, so it’s hardly “apples to apples”. And that was on ’68 and up versions, which inherently handled better than the ’59 did, without modifications.
Comparing it to an Escalade with bias ply tires is a bit silly, no?
He asked which one would ride better; as they were, stock. One can modify anything.
Interesting observation! While the ‘59 is ensconced in Americana as a remarkable piece of design I take Paul’s word on its inefficient and cramped accommodations although I would not turn down a ride in one just to experience it. That said I would absolutely pick the Escalade for daily driving (or riding) in – the current model has identifiable and distinguishing styling cues and is quite a presence in the metal.
For all the people crying about it being just another box and that the ‘59 is a work of art, back in 1959 I don’t think the Cadillac stood out nearly as much in a sea of similar looking cars and being seen in one probably carried the same gravitas as riding in the Escalade today.
The Caddy’s competition in 1959:
Hmm. If I was in the market for a dignified-looking prestige car in 1959, I would probably wind up with one of these by default. The Cadillac was sleek but outlandish, and the Imperial was also sleek but a bit less outlandish. But this still looks too busy.
More likely I’d hold on to my old car and see what 1960 would bring. But then I’m not American, so I wouldn’t feel bound to change cars so often.
You’re not an American circa 1960. The average age of a car in the United States today is 12 years; 11 years in Australia.
Older than ours. That is surprising.
What’s interesting is the 59 was a one year wonder, with some thematic resemblance to it through the 64 model year. The Escalade has looked basically the same in the same ways since its 2002 redesign – 18 years! Think about how different a 41 Cadillac looked from 59 or a 77 Cadillac looked from it.
The 59 may have been gaudy and inefficiently packaged (because Luxury Cadillac buyers need ample utility space?) but the sea of similar looking cars was much shallower in the times of annual styling changes, the Escalade exists in much murkier waters of modern times where all there is is that monolithic shape until that chromed maw is right behind you.
According to Wikipedia:
Escalade
1 First generation 1999–2000
2 Second generation 2002–2006
3 Third generation 2007–2014
4 Fourth generation 2015–2020
I think the fourth generation is where they spent a little more money to share less with a Suburban or Tahoe (whichever one they really are).
I once was driving next to a black third gen one and was wondering who would be driving such a gaudy expensive fraud of a car. Turned out to be a typical thirty/fortysomething stockbroker type guy. I wondered what was wrong with him.
Around here these days, if you’re driving an Escalade I think most people would just assume you work for Uber. Especially if it’s black.
That being said, GM really went all out in the new Escalade’s dashboard. I’m interested in seeing it in person at some point.
I once was driving next to a black third gen one and was wondering who would be driving such a gaudy expensive fraud of a car. Turned out to be a typical thirty/fortysomething stockbroker type guy. I wondered what was wrong with him.
Would you have felt the same way in 1959?
For me it’s not the resemblance to the Tahoe but the resemblance to itself, the first gen Escalade shared the most sheetmetal with the Chevy, but its styling was quite a different style than the art &science theme of 2002 and later, and it really hasn’t changed that much between second and fourth generation, at least not any more than the 64 changed from the 59.
Can the average person tell the difference between those generations?
On the other hand, how many ways can you style a big box?
JFK is usually credited with putting mens hats out of fashion in the early sixties but cars like the 59 Cadillac were making them a very difficult style trend to maintain.
And the 1961 Lincoln definitely put the Harley Earle type Cadillacs out of fashion, although the 1960 facelift already toned things down, like the rest of the carryover GM’s.
It is interesting that a crowd photos from before the 60’s generally show a sea of fedoras. Church pews often had clips on the back to hang them on. Then *poof* gone.
You know, I always wondered what those clips were for, other than for me to mess around with as a bored eight-year-old. Now I know.
My Grandfather used to put his hat on the “shelf” near one of the stained glass windows in his church, they also had those hat clips for the brims of the hat. I think I only saw him wear shorts one time…but he lived in mid-atlantic states and back then I think they dressed a bit more formally…some people would take insult if you didn’t dress appropriately (i.e. more formally) back then. Even my Grandmother would address her peers more formally, i.e. Mrs. Smith, rather than by her first name. I haven’t heard that for a long time..one exception was a man that was the father of my friend in middle school, we moved to another state, and then he moved to the same state, and I was working with him at the same place…I’d been used to calling him “Mr _” but with both of us 20 years older, should I start addressing him by his first name? (we had no contact in those intervening 20 years, so it was extra uncomfortable for me).
We have an Easter picture of my Dad, my sister and I circa 1963. I’m pretty sure our clothes were gifts from my Grandmother who shopped in her local kids shop, but I’m wearing a suit with a bowtie and a black hat, though my Dad isn’t wearing a hat in the picture, he was way more comfortable than I ever was wearing one, as they quickly stopped being fashionable. On the other hand, I’d have to say my Dad was much more comfortable wearing a hat than I ever was, to him it seemed like second nature, to me (almost never wear hats) it seemed odd and a bit uncomfortable.
The thing that gets me is when I drive in my Grandparent’s town (we never lived there) the streets are much more narrow, and I wonder how people were able to negotiate them with thse wide cars. I did drive some full sized cars like my Dad’s 1973 LTD, but was at the tail end of the large car bein common when I started driving. Even today, with much smaller cars, it is not unusual that you have to stop for another car going the other way (with cars parked curbside but extending into the road). Some of these are major thoroughfares in the area but seem to be pretty narrow for wide cars to navigate on.
The Biscayne was about the same width and height, sharing the same basic body structure, but the Cadillac was about fifteen inches longer and 1400 pounds heavier.
And where did those 1400 lbs. come from? That was a question asked on a Cadillac forum and nobody had a good answer. 15″ of extra length should not equal 1400 lbs.
My sources say more like 1200 lbs.
It’s only partly in the body. Mostly it’s in: a heavier and longer frame, bigger bumpers, a cast grille, a much bigger engine, a heavy automatic compared to a three-speed manual, Power steering, bigger cooling system, power brakes, bigger brakes, bigger wheels and tires, heavier suspension components, heavier drive line and rear axle, a lot more heavy sound deadening, much thicker and heavier seats, trim, carpeting, a much more complex and heavy dash. I could go on. It’s in all the things that make them different. They add up.
Yes, components add up. Another apples to apples comparison, my 1993 C1500 pickup vs 2000 K2500. Same exact GMT400 regular cab body in base trim, so no extra upholstery, insulation, power accessories, but 1300lb difference in unladen weight (per California registration cards). Tires, wheels, brakes, axles, springs, frame, transmission and engine are all heavier on the 2500.
I used to be an Escalade critic, but having spent time in the back seat of many taking black cars, and driving a few Suburbans and Tahoes, I’ve made peace with the behemoths. I’d never buy one (it wouldn’t even fit in my garage) but, eh, it’s got its place.
Fascinating and inspired comparison. Nicely done, gentlemen.
Means a lot coming from the North Side. Even if I did accidentally call you Dennis the other day.
1959 when the cars were a Real CARS
I’ve loved looking at these overlays, and this is the most fascinating one yet. If I were to have guessed beforehand, I’d have said that the two cars here would have been about the same length, but I would have assumed that the Escalade would have a longer wheelbase. And to think that the ’59 came up precisely to the Escalade’s window line. Absolutely fascinating to see.
Makes sense; the Escalade ESV is the spiritual successor of the Cadillac of its post-war heyday.
It might be a ‘truck’ but with body-on-frame, rear-drive bias and a V8, it has more in common with historic Cadillacs than with its contemporary stablemates.
My favorite overlay so far–graphic reminder of how things have changed.
I went looking for some discussion of the weight differential (vs. other 1959 GM cars), and found this new-to-me thing: FREON in shock absorbers? How long did this last?
“Genetron Gas” was GM’s trade name. I think it made it into all GM passenger car shocks by the late 1960’s.
My lordy, that first photo is a showstopper. Genuinely stunning.
Naturally, there’s about 738 jokes that could be made along the lines of “..you stack ’em twice as high, and they’re twice the size, and after 60 years, they STILL vote the same way”, but that’d be cheap, and too easy.
I suspect it’s altogether more mundane, in both cases probably being as dull as “available platforms” as far as GM was concerned, and “cheap fuel and a liking for more because why the hell not” as far as the consumer is.
Not for me, either of them, but also cause for pause of thought in being judgmental.
I used to notice Escalades more than I do now, but never really liked them. They’re not a vehicle that I would want anyway. Now, they just blend in and I don’t see them. I recognize that this could be an artifact of being less popular, but I have no evidence.
Are they still big with those in the hip-hop music scene?