(first posted 5/30/2014) My sympathies are with all of you non-Volvophiles this week. It’s hard having to sit through endless recitations about the joys of bricks, SU carbs, four cylinder Red Blocks, Laycock de Normanville overdrives and such. But I know just what will perk you up: a nice, big Cadillac. And what could be nicer and bigger than a 500 cubic inch 1975 Sedan DeVille? Nothing; except of course a Fleetwood 75. So although we’re going to give you a break here, it’s only up to a point. Since it is Volvo Week, we’re obligated to note that this splendid land yacht does have a few things in common with a Volvo 240, and we’d be remiss in not pointing them out. But you could just ignore that and drool over the pictures.
No, it’s not the paint job. But they both have three side windows, or in traditional Cadillac parlance, a six-window sedan. Frankly, their overall shape and greenhouse are really not all that different, eh? Or have I been looking at butterflies too long?
I found this sitting at the curb in downtown Woodside, CA., a rustic but extremely upscale little town. I had to keep dodging an endless stream of Teslas, Ferraris, Maseratis, and Cobras on this sunny Sunday afternoon. But I knew you all would like this more than any of those highfalutin Silicon Valley toys. It’s a wild guess, but this car may well have spent its life here in Woodside, bought by an older person at the time, as by 1975, a Mercedes S Class was the thing to have among the seriously monied set, if not something more exotic.
The result of all that glass is a decidedly airy feel to the cabin; quite Volvo-esque indeed. The fabric is a bit posher than a Volvo’s, but this DeVille’s upholstery is a lot closer to a 240 than its stablemate, the legendary Fleetwood Talisman. Rumor has it that someone actually suffocated in the vast poofy loose pillows and folds of a Talisman, but GM settled with the family and denied it vehemently.
The front seat is certainly more amenable to three-across seating than the bench in the 144 we saw the other day. But then one was much less likely to see such an attractive young lass behind the wheel of a ’75 Cadillac. More like her grandmother.
Let’s consider performance. The Cadillac’s 500 cubic inch (8.2 L) V8 was the biggest engine in the post war era, but that didn’t exactly mean outsized performance. According to the one source available, a 1975 DeVille oozed from 0-60 in 11.8 seconds. Well, that big V8 did only have 190 hp. A 1975 Volvo 164E matched it almost perfectly, at 12.0 seconds. Something else in common. But one could probably hear it working a bit, unlike the Cadillac. Fuel economy? Not much in common there.
And there’s no denying that the front ends of these two cars do have some decided similarities.
The rear ends? Not so much so.
Have I overlooked other similarities?
I took the bait…….I’m going to pop up like a gopher here…..
I actually don’t mind Volvo week, I like the more unusually ones, the 240’s are just to common, but I find stull like the Bertone coupe and 164 interesting.
Very clean car, it has the solid non-split front bench, which was becoming less and less common by this time, though it hung around until 1981 or so when the split bench became standard.
It was first rumored that Patty Hearst was actually missing in the folds of a Fleetwood Talismans seats, but later they found out she was actually kidnapped.
I heard that was were they put the late Jimmy Hoffa…
Mmm…tasty. There is something about the non-Fleetwood Caddies of this era that is quite appealing. Don’t get me wrong, I love me some Talisman and Brougham, but the non-top-of-the-line just seems less, well, 70s.
I owned a low mileage 76 Fleetwood Talisman for 15 years. I would much rather have a d’Elegance as the seating is much more comfortable.
The D’Elegance for the win! I didn’t know they made a real bench. I thought they all were 40/60 splits.
It the Fleetwood, the split bench was standard starting around 1969-1970.
Wow…the 76 Fleetwood Talisman interiors are insane.
Funny thing…
If you enlarge the picture of the Talisman interior above, you’ll see that this person not only sprung for the Talisman package, but also for a power astroroof, yet still settled for the standard wipers w/o the “delay” (intermittent) option.
$1800 for the Talisman package, almost $900 for the astroroof, but too cheap to spring for the $28 Controlled Cycle Wipers.
I think odd omissions like this is one reason almost all manufacturers now have option “groups”.
Any comparison between a Cadillac and a Volvo is an insult to the Cadillac.
Cadillac has always out classed any Swedish POS. Even after GM started putting Chevy engines in Cadillacs. Another insult to Cadillac.
Cadillac unfortunately insulted itself without Volvo’s help. They are on a good track now though.
*cough* Cimarron *cough*
Chill out, Ron. The article was obviously somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Comparing this Caddy and Volvo is like trying to compare Arnold Schwarzenegger with Arnold Palmer. 🙂
They both play golf?
Come on, man, chill. It’s meant to be a joke.
The only thing insulting to Cadillac was that you could buy a Volvo for cheaper then a Caddy and yet the Volvo was so much more reliable. Volvo was not making pretensions about their cars then. They were advertised as being safe and comfortable to drive. There were no pretensions about them being luxury cars(until Ford owned them at least)
The Caddy by contrast tried everything to kill off sales. Here are only a few of the many ways:
1. Offered a intake/headgasket eating engine called the 4.1L V8
2. Offered a tarted up Cavalier (and priced it $6000-$8000 more) in order to try to convince younger buyers to by a Caddy instead of a BMW
3. Downsized and made FWD most of their lineup so that most of their cars now looked like more pricy versions of Buicks and Oldsmobiles(by contrast Lincoln still offered a RWD Towncar and also the gorgeous Mark VII(which should have been what the Eldorado looked like instead of looking like a 2 door Skylark)
4. Offered the Northstar engine(which in theory should have been a good engine and offered the nice feature of being able to drive miles to get safely home in the event the cooling system died by cylinder deactivation BUT in reality, the NorthCrap engine could not hold fluids(such as oil) to begin with)
It got to a point in the 1980’s and early 1990’s that nobody wanted a Caddy. If they could afford to do so they ether went German or bought a Lexus. Otherwise they went went Lincoln and sales tanked over at GM’s premier division.
Heck during that time the only folks proud to own a Caddy were those who were elderly or those folks of a lower financial strata whose first order of business was to put a set of those ugly oversized rims on the car.
This morning going to work I say 4 pre Ford era Volvos on the road. By contrast the only Caddy of the same era I have seen in 2 weeks, was on the side of 495 with its hood up and white towel sticking out the drivers window.
It is true that the base price of the Cimarron was just over $12000, while the cheapest Cavalier was about $6400, the top of the line Cavalier was more than $8000 without A/C, which was standard on the Cimarron. Automatic Climate Control was not available on either, while my 83 Skyhawk (basically the same thing) did have it.
That is still 50% more than a loaded Cavalier, which is outrageous. The Cav wasn’t worth that kind of money and there is no way that the Cimmaron would be worth the extra premium. Seems buyers agreed. I remember the marketing of the Cimmaron; there was so little good about the car the ads concentrated on stuff like “The first manual Cadillac since 1950” and it was a four speed with O/D when everything else was a five speed, or “the first four cylinder Cadillac” when it was pushrod buzzer out of a Caviler, making all of like 88 hp.
Volvos were sold to people who believed they lasted a long time and compared to 1960’s American stuff, they did. All the materials in a Volvo were very high quality, they had excellent seats and brakes, too. A Volvo was a better product that a V-8 American sedan, but remember, it was 2-3 times the money. I just never liked the way they drove; they seemed determined to go straight and hated any kind of corner.
My experience is that while generally good cars, Volvos were not infallible. When cars like the Camry became available (and their class setting reliability) much of Volvo’s market went away.
Ok, but an Impala (full size, 1982) was about 8000 while the Deville was double that. Is that reasonable?
In my opinion, not it is not, and many would have agreed with me because after 1985 or so, Cadillac sales went down the crapper.
In my opinion, a loaded Buick Electra or Oldsmobile 98 was the same car as the Cadillac and a good $2000 cheaper.
Certainly in the 80’s and 90’s a nicely equipped Buick could get you nearly everything that a Deville had. The Chevy Caprice was a very nice car, although I am not sure about the engines. The FWD Buicks had the fuel injected V6 that was really quite good or at least the ones I owned were quite good.
Now the RWD Cadillacs do give you something that is not generally available from Chevy or Buick. Are they worth it is a good question. The Regal is probably Buick’s best car now.
Not the first four banger Cadillac, a friend restored a 1913 Caddy it was a four a bloody big four but still only four cylinders.
In 1975 Cadillacs were actually pretty reliable, at least as reliable as Volvos, provided you didn’t get one with fuel injection. Cadillac reliability didn’t become a running joke until the V8-6-4 of 1981. Mind you it was one disaster after another from then on.
Fanboi whiteknighting detected.
Put down the Kool-Aid.
I should show these photos to a friend who is a third generation Volvo owner, whose family Volvo history goes back to early 1960s, and also was a third generation Marine Corps officer, totally busting the usual Volvo owner stereotype. He often bemoaned how Cadillacs and American cars in general were overstyled while Volvos were timeless. He never could agree when I insisted that Cadillac from the mid-60s onward was actually quite conservative and as “square” as Volvo, while other American cars were going baroque during the 1970s. Here is proof that I was right! Contradicting anything said about the bulk and thirst of Cadillacs during that era is another story, of course – you can’t do it.
Which car has been more trouble free over it’s life span?
Which car has been less expensive to maintain (parts and labor)?
Which car is now a classic? Which car has appreciated in value? Which car is devoid of character, and selling for peanuts? Which car is now pulling around fugly, big nosed old cat ladies with long armpit hairs stinking of petruli oil and hummus breath?……. you make the call.
Umm, tasty. After a week of eating what’s good for you, here’s a luscious high calorie dessert.
My mother traded her ’76 Fleetwood (not a Talisman, sadly) for an ’80 Volvo 244GL. Mostly because she was tired of getting 8 MPG, but also because she was tired of piloting a barge.
That kinda sums up the difference between European and American cars at the time. “I want a non-barge, so I’ll buy Europe’s most barge-like car”.
That’s a good one !
Is the silver one a US spec Volvo, given its headlights ? The plate says it’s a 1980 Volvo 264 GL Automatic. It was registered here in october 2010, so probably imported from the US, 30 years after its first registration. I just found out that the wheelbase of a 264 is actually 264 cm.
I thought the same thing, when I found it on the web. Odd. Maybe it’s a thing, to have a US-spec headlight front end. I know American Volvo owner’s who have retrofitted Euro-spec headlights on their 240s.
It’s not uncommon to import older or classic Euro-cars from the US into Europe. Mostly from warm and dry US regions. I’ve seen a lot of Mercedes S and SL models with US spec bumpers and headlights at classic car shows here, often they are in an immaculate condition with a fully documented service history.
I saw many clearly US-spec Mercedes 380SLs and 560SLs parked on the street in Stockholm, which follows what you said.
We’re getting some U.S. spec Euros in oz. By far the most is Porsche.
A lot of folks assume that if an old Volvo or Mercedes in Europe has US-spec headlamps that the car is a US-model when many times it is just a headlamp conversion done by the owner. The US look is particularly popular on Volvo 740s in Europe.
For some odd reason too many American enthusiasts assume that everyone prefers one-piece blobby Euro headlamps over US sealed beams when that’s just not the case. It’s as antiquated an opinion as 5mph bumpers are always ugly.
To further prove my point if the US look is so bad why don’t more European enthusiasts change over to Euro lamps on the cars they import from the US? Answer: Because the US lamps often look better.
Four round or square headlights often do look good, I agree. But trust me, a Mercedes SL from the seventies with US spec headlights AND 5mph bumpers is an import. The same goes for the Porsches.
And the reason for this is simple: there are more old SL models in a good condition in the US than in Europe: Climate reasons combined with sales numbers back then. Has nothing to do with looks but with the chances to find a good one, a matter of question and demand.
By the way, sealed beams are not allowed. On my 1969 Plymouth they had to be replaced.
That silver Volvo was registered in the Netherlands in 2010, 30 years after its first registration in 1980. The plate says it all.
Any pics of the headlamp mod on your Plymouth?
These are the Euro-lights. Not much of a difference I guess ? Also the amber running lights had to be disconnected. But it’s not too hard to connect them again after it’s got its plates….
That’s one sweet ‘Cuda!
Thanks for sharing.
I’m not a huge fan of the 71-76 Cadillacs but this red one looks stunning and is in remarkable condition. Blue plates, original floor mats, perfect original paint and interior. Unusual to see red seat cloth that is not faded on a car so old.
This one must be loved like a child because who uses a “club” in a town as nice as Woodside? And what’s the story with the microfiber towel there between the end of the club and fold-down armrest? A cushion to protect the armrest or a tidy storage place for the towel?
The Volvo and Cadillac don’t share much beyond those glorious square headlights, which improved the looks of both bodystyles tremendously.
Would love to talk to the owner of the Deville to hear about its history and upkeep regimen and also to congratulate him on the perfect parking space — alone, door ding proof and under the shade of a tree.
Needs more sunglasses on the dash, Gone in Sixty Seconds style….
A theme repeated on the dash of the ’79 or ’80 Eldo in “The Junkman”.
Yep, and Quentin Tarantino paid homage to it in one of the Kill Bill movies.
You can’t mount a M60 machine gun in the truck of any Volvo, advantage Cadillac!
Trunk not truck
You’re goddamn right!
Fantastic find, Paul. You’ve shot one of the best condition Caddies from that era that ever I’ve seen. I used to live in the Bay Area, and know that location exactly. It’s just up the road from Buck’s, an amazing joint of a restaurant and well worth checking out if you get back that way. I’m sure you’re also right about the likely original owner of this DeVille. In Woodside and the surrounding towns of Atherton, Portola Valley and Menlo Park you had a lot of “Greatest Generation” (WWII vets, etc.) who partook in the 1950’s prosperity and made their way into those towns to live the upper-middle-class American dream. They built nice ranch houses on nice lots and filled the two car garages with nice American cars. It was a quiet, comfortable–and vanishing–way of life. Many, many of these ranch houses have been torn down and replaced with monster houses (with oversized garages bursting with Porsches and Bentleys). I recall seeing many, many neat old cars coming out of those old garages (when the houses were getting prepped for demolition) as the original owners “moved on” and their estates were sold. Lots of old Caddies, Lincolns, T-Birds, Buicks and the occasional immaculate old Chrysler. Even a Volvo or two (had to throw that in to honor this week’s featured marque). All sold and/or passed on… at least this one seems to have found the right sort of caring owner, so hopefully it will continue to be preserved as an amazing artifact of a bygone era.
Both cars sold mainly to die-hard customers who would never consider any other car.
Like Calibrick, I am generally not a fan of these, but this one is really nice. I don’t even see any cracks on the driver’s door panel. I remember that plum color, it was never common but Cadillac always had a very wide color palette back then. Unlike Volvo.
The commonalities between this Cadillac and brick Volvo go beyond just the physical – both have a very dedicated fanbase who will painstakingly preserve these cars for far longer than “lesser” cars of the same period are maintained. Both have earned quite the stereotype, however divergent that may be. Both are also a wonderful reminder of what was both good and bad about days gone by.
One other: I would love to take both for a nice, long drive.
Over 8 liters, that is a lot of displacement. Would it be possible to tune it up, to say, 400 hp without loss of its smoothness? To ‘unstrangle’ it, so to say?
The 70 Eldorado was rated at 400 hp with high compression. That was gross brake hp though. The problem here is that the exhaust is routed through one catalytic converter restricting the exhaust. Off hand I don’t know what sort of tuning is available for this engine, but a tuned port fuel injection system and dual exhausts would make a big difference. The Seville’s fuel injection (analog) was optional, although that may have been in 76.
there are rod shops that specialize in these…they can be hopped up like any other…the advantage is that they are torque monsters…
These engines have can be tuned to all kinds of levels of performance. It’s strictly a matter of time and money. Here’s an article back from 1998 that modified one to churn out 514 hp at only 4400 rpm without much difficulty. Torque: 572 lb.ft @ 2600 rpm. More is quite possible.
These engines are torque monsters, but don’t like to rev beyond 4800-5000 rpm without serious risk of damaging their valve gear. But then they don’t need to. http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/hrdp_9809_500ci_cadillac_big_block_engine_build/
Amazing Cadillac. Read the article, it said something that I thought I knew. The 500 became standard in the volume DeVille, in ’75 and ’76. Seems odd to jump the standard displacement from 472 after OPEC I and the coming downsizing. I suppose it allowed them to consolidate some engine production and maybe they just weren’t ready to say goodbye to the 500.
Both Chrysler and Ford relented on their top big blocks in ’78 and ’79 respectively by making the 440 optional on the New Yorker and I believe Lincoln gave up on the 460 entirely in favor of a 400.
You can say that they didn’t like to be rev’d again, Paul. My 1969 472cid just screamed to be upshifted at around 3K RPM, and when you did it would instantly set you back in the seat – torque peaked at 2200rpm IIRC. It was an awesome experience, and startled many-a-new passenger who didn’t realize what low-end torque was about.
Gross horse power was rated to be 375 @4400, with peak torque of 525 lb-ft @3000. This engine should run up to 4000 RPMs with no difficulty, although with leaded premium fuel not available…
My guess would be that Cadillac decided the 500 didn’t really impose a meaningful penalty in fuel consumption relative to the 472 and had better performance in emissions-controlled form.
I love both those cars. Used to a ’76 Sedan deVille.
Both interesting, desirable cars, in their own peculiar way. So different, but yet again so iconic. I wonder in the history of the world if there was anyone who ever owned both.
Well, close…
When I was a kid, there was a dentist down the block that had (this was when you could clearly distinguish model years) a 1972 Fleetwood and a 1974 or 1975 164 (it was just about the last of the 164s). Even then, I always thought it was an odd combination.
I like the front end treatment of the Caddy – they did a good job keeping the C cars fresh, but I always thought the addition of the opera window was too much, especially as the Electra and 98 added it too.
I’m a fan of the six-window 4 door hardtops, but personally I think the B body pulls it off just a little bit better.
My brother owns both a white 1966 Chrysler and a black VW Cabriolet. How’s that for yin and yang?
The last car my Mom drove was a 76 Sedan De Ville in burgundy vinyl over silver. My Dad kept that car runnning, driving and beautiful in the DC suburbs for nearly twenty five years. Smooth ride, great stereo and powerful ac.
Do your folks still own that Cadillac? I know people who would buy that beast in a heartbeat.
Looks like it’s still almost brand new. If I was unlucky enough to be in a serious head on collision, the Cadillac is the one I would want to be in.
While it might have had the optional air bags, it probably doesn’t. Body is not designed for any kind of crash, much less headon. Of course a head on with say an old VW beetle is not the same thing as a head on with another Cadillac.
Thanks for sharing the story and the Deville. I had a summer job as a teen working for this school teacher in the 1980’s. She owned a 1976 Coupe Deville and a 1985 Coupe Deville. You really see the difference after you see just how much things changed between that time frame. The 76 was stable and heavy and built quite well. The 85 was smaller, and not as stable and you could tell Cadillac had changed. This was noticeable and not in a positive manner. It was interesting just how much Cadillac had changed. the ride had changed too. I preferred the 1975 Oldsmobile Ninety Eight and the 1975 Pontiac Grand Ville/Bonneville of this era.
Caddy all the way, Caddy, Caddy, Caddy.
No replacement for displacement and the beautiful thing is as the guys mentioned above, much more hp and torque is just a few new parts and adjustments away.
Here in Manitoba I have not seen a single 74-76 Cadillac DeVille for sale in over 2 years. Lots of Eldorados from this era appear on kijiji and there are always Lincoln Continental Town Cars for sale. I remember seeing plenty of Cadillac sedans around in the 70s but for some reason they weren’t saved from the ravages of winter salt like the Lincolns were. I guess after GM downsized in 77 nobody thought the last of the big ones would be collectible. When Lincoln announced that 1979 would be the end for the huge Continental and Mark V people saved them thinking they would be valuable some day. That certainly didn’t happen and you can get one for less than what you would pay for a 70s Cutlass Supreme.
The problem with Caddies of this age are not as easy to own as Lincolns, mostly due to interior quality. The Lincoln has a much better level of quality of materials and trip and causes a lot less trouble. If the Cadillac has been stored outside for any length of time, UV will degrade the interior very quickly.
Look at the sloping rear armrest in the rear seat of the Cadillac; it was the same way in one I owned and a friend’s. Five more minutes and they could have fitted it correctly. I have owned 3 low mileage 76 Cadillac’s: Sedan Deville, Fleetwood Talisman and Formal Limousine. The build quality was the lowest of any car I have ever owned. I thought they were handsome and could have been wonderful cars. Volvo had their problems too, but were not built as a disposable car as the Cadillac was. Also given the worse case scenario I would much rather be in the Volvo in an accident. Cadillac had not discovered crumble zones yet.
I’ve been wanting to do a COAL on my 75, coupe Deville D’elegance for some time now. Been a great car in the time I’ve had it. Had zero problems with it, and certainly is more reliable that the 2003 Escalade i had!
One thing people say about them is how such a small amount of horsepower comes out of 8.2 liters, but they way The car is geared along with the torque requires that you just barely have to feather the gas to keep up in traffic and to pass people. The engine rev so lazily that you can barely even notice when it changes gears.
Other than a piece of crooked trim on the drivers door, build quality on it seems pretty decent compared to what i have always heard about these, but i am sure the ones that survive today are the exceptions to the rule!
Nice Coupe, I like empty parking garage shot, it makes it look like you’re showing up to take car of some “business”. Yeah, people don’t get the hp numbers, its the down and dirty torque these big Cadillac 500’s make, its like a tugboat, you just stare at the gas pedal and the car moves forward.
For the vast majority of drivers, horsepower means very little. It’s the torque we all love since so few of us will ever drive fast anyway.
Being a passenger in the Caddy on a long roadtrip would no doubt be the best way to experience such a car. For actually DRIVING, the edge would go to the Volvo, although neither is my bag at all.
Happy 39th birthday to these Cadillacs, and thanks, Paul, for the Volvo break.
I am a brick fan -and if we’re comparing Volvos and Caddies, why not note another similarity? The 140 series’ new angular design was similar, yet a decade ahead of GM’s ‘hard-edge’ design, first seen on the ’75 Seville. And compare the Volvo front-end picture, above, to the front of a ’75 Seville -there are similarities.
I remember the introduction of the 140 series cars -they had a light and agile look to them that no competitor offered. It’s difficult to capture that context when just viewing a CC Volvo in 2014. Moreover, Volvo’s attention to orthopedic/ergonomically designed seats made the interiors brilliant -so compare those seats’ shape to those of the DeVille above -you’ll recognize a seat shape that Cadillac didn’t have until the ’69 models.
Speaking of interiors, I’ve embedded an interior pic of my ’75 Fleetwood to echo Marshall’s comments about overall satisfaction with these cars: that interior has 89,000 on it, 2,200 mi/yr. The mottled color was called ‘Antique Dark Blue’. This was a one-owner car from outside of Sacramento. Having complimented the interior, I’ll also say I never lay a hand on the door panels or arm rests in abject fear of that first crack.
I looked at a ’79 d’Elegance the other day, and its interior was flawless at 140,000! (http://hardwayclassiccars.com/InventoryDetail.aspx?ID=154) But with any GM car, it’s all how it was cared for, because the preponderance of them never fared as well over time.
On the performance front, I found a Road Test comparison (from May 1975) that managed 10.9 seconds 0-60 with a 1975 DeVille. That was a coupe, although I don’t imagine that made much difference. (I suppose the coupe was a bit lighter, but in that weight class, the difference seems trivial.)
“My sympathies are with all of you non-Volvophiles this week.”
Thank you, Paul!
This old Caddy has been, and continues to be, if The Club on the steering wheel is an indication, well-loved, unlike many Volvos of this vintage which became dirty, abused hippie conveyances (one hates to even call them ‘cars’).
Incidentaly, what is it about the big rectangular plastic headlights on some-year Volvos that almost all of them are dingy, yellow and almost opaque by now? Maybe the Swedes used a plastic and UV protection that was good enough in the Far North but woefully inadequate in sunnier climes at lower latitudes? Round-headlight Mercedes-Benz seem to be headed for the same unsightly and unsafe fate.
Cerise Firemist and white? Perfect!
In the 70s Cadillacs problem #1 was sheet metal quality, whereas Volvos problem #1 was lack of engine power. If both had worked together and combined their forces in the malaise era 70s , they would have made a world ruling car like MBW123 or RR Silver Shadow (for one third the money and ten times as many buyers).
Back when Fruehauf made sedans! I have a similar ’75 is more subdued plumage.
Split bench instead of regular bench with same fabric.
We had a ’75 Sedan de Ville, in that odd pea-green, but in mint condition, that we bought in 1984 to do a marathon road trip from Maryland to Dallas to Montana and back home. It was the perfect comfortable and safe trip car for Mom, Dad (me) and 2 kids over 3500 miles of mostly Interstate. It was the right choice, poor gas mileage aside, but it was sold on return, mainly because it didn’t make sense as a daily driver, however a finer chariot for an extended family tour would be hard to find – perhaps only the legendary Talisman, one of which I’d been unable to find!
I think I saw one of these on The Rockford Files.
It was driven by mafia baddies and the gangsters had kidnapped Jim. They were arguing about the hard starting of the Caddy (“You’re flooding it!”) and Jim used the distraction to make his eacape.
To this day, however unfairly, I associate one of these with being hard to start. And of course driven by thugs with fat double-windsor-knotted ties.
Or just Robert Loggia because he was awesome.
In this day when the average car on the road is over a decade old its strange to remember just how rare these were on the roads in the mid ’80s. The photographer who made liquor store runs for me in high school had a very nice 1976 Sedan De Ville(actually a four-door hardtop) that he enjoyed. By 1986 it seemed like it had come from a different world.
Cadillac people still bought new cars every two or three years, and that practice contributed to most of the Cadillacs around being truncated caricatures of the 1977 DeVille with the exception of the odd hump-backed Seville. Today, I don’t think a 2010 Escalade would look at all out of place in a grocery store parking lot, but that wasn’t the case for the last of the big cars when they were a decade old.
By 1986 gas was no longer expensive or scarce when adjusted for inflation, but the low-compression large-displacement cars of the mid-70s never made a return to popular use where I lived for anything other than demolition derbies. It seemed like there was a stigma for driving a gas-guzzler after the fuel crunches, even if there wasn’t a stigma for driving a Blazer, Wagoneer, Ramcharger, or Suburban.
I love reading all your comments. Looking at the steering wheel made me laugh. My 1978 Dodge Aspen station wagon had a tilt steering wheel. These tilt wheels were manufactured by Saginaw Division of GM. It was not a big selling option for the Aspen. So, my steering wheel was similar to the one in the Cadillac with a different insert, albeit padded, and, of course, with a Dodge emblem.
We had both a ’76 Sedan de Ville and a ’66 and the older (472) car was twice the vehicle in every way compared to the ’76 (500) car. By the mid-seventies Cadillac seemed to share in all of GM’s vices, whereas the ’66 seemed to be a cut above the vehicles from the other divisions. I’d love to have another ’66, but wouldn’t cross the road to be given a ’76. Of course my vehicles are always used and have fairly miles.
You could look at it as the same form interpreted for right-brain people (Cadillac) an(d left-brain people (Volvo.)
We had both a ’76 Sedan de Ville and a ’66 and the older (472) car was twice the vehicle in every way compared to the ’76 (500) car. By the mid-seventies Cadillac seemed to share in all of GM’s vices, whereas the ’66 seemed to be a cut above the vehicles from the other divisions. I’d love to have another ’66, but wouldn’t cross the road to be given a ’76. Of course my vehicles are always used and have fairly miles. The ’66 wore them much better.