The mid-1960s were a peak period for Cadillac, with modernized engineering, tasteful styling, and a high standard of quality. When it came to interior design, the 1965 De Ville series might have been the high water mark of this era. Let’s take a closer look at a 1965 hardtop Sedan de Ville, inside and out.
With the exception of the Series 75 limousines, the 1965 Cadillac line was all-new, with squared-off, more subdued styling; curved side glass; and an almost complete diminution of the brand’s famous fins.
Whether this was the decade’s best-looking C-body Cadillac on the outside is arguable, but it was at the very least an uncontroversial choice: substantial-looking, well-detailed, and free of eccentricity. Median Cadillac, in other words — still brash by European luxury standards, but sober and tasteful.
While Cadillac offered a whopping 21 color choices for 1965, including five extra-cost Firemist colors, white was the most popular choice by a wide margin. I’m generally not crazy about white cars, but its popularity isn’t hard to understand: White was neutral, it wasn’t as hard to keep presentable as black (usually the second-most-popular choice), it wasn’t going to fade to something hideous after a couple of years, and it could be combined with any interior choice: The De Ville offered a dozen this year, with available more by special order.
If I DID buy an Aspen White 1965 Cadillac, this is probably the interior option I would want: trim code 328, random weave Delta cloth in turquoise, bolstered in matching turquoise leather. While the interior of this particular car has some concerning issues as well as six decades of wear and tear, let’s pause also to note the design of the door trim, which has a nice array of detail: door pulls set into a brushed metal strip; a swath of cloth upholstery in a Y-shaped chrome surround that, as we’ll see in a moment, subtly echoes the seat stitching pattern. Back then, automakers spent a lot of money in this area — even to the extent of creating entirely different inner door designs for each trim series — correctly assuming that the doors set the tone for the rest of the interior.
Automakers of this era often boasted that their fabric and interior design selections would look good even in your home, and with the 1965 De Ville, I think that was really true. Cadillac has been guilty at various points of relying on fancy upholstery to create visual interest on very ordinary-looking seats, but the design of these De Ville seats, with their tidy Y-shaped stitching pattern, would make a set of handsome office chairs.
One of the attractions of the De Ville series was that you got real leather bolsters even with cloth upholstery — most C-body Oldsmobile and Buick models had vinyl, as did the cheaper Cadillac Calais. In some years, the leather Cadillac provided with the cloth-and-leather combinations was limited to a meager strip or two, but the 1965 design gave you a reasonably generous amount of actual leather even with the standard upholstery. (The cushion sides were expanded vinyl rather than hide, which is why the ones in this car have faded noticeably less than the adjacent leather bolsters.)
Convertibles came with leather rather than cloth seat inserts, and you could order leather on closed bodies at extra cost (which I would have been tempted to do if I were buying one of these cars new, although turquoise leather inserts would have been a special order). The leather inserts had the same stitching pattern as the cloth ones. Cadillac normally specified perforated “Aztec grain,” which breathed better, but was more easily stained or damaged. If you preferred, you could specify inserts of the same non-perforated “antique grain” as the bolsters. Note that this convertible De Ville has a notchback bench seat with a wider center armrest than the sedan; this seat was included on two-door models or on a Sedan de Ville with leather upholstery.
Cadillac’s 1965 bench seats were obviously intended to create a bucket seat look, but you could also order actual bucket seats with a center console on the De Ville. (These were a regular production option on the convertibles and Coupe de Ville, a special order on a Sedan de Ville.) The upholstery design was very similar regardless of seat type. I find this continuity pleasing, and I think having this range of choices in material and design while maintaining the common styling themes gave the De Ville a bespoke feel, like ordering a piece of nice furniture.
The Fleetwood Eldorado, available only as a convertible at this point, had more actual leather and less vinyl, but while its ribbed leather seats wouldn’t look out of place in a Bentley Continental, I don’t find their design quite as appealing as the De Ville seats. You could also order the De Ville with “all leather upholstery,” keeping the De Ville patterns, but substituting leather rather than expanded vinyl for the faces of the seat cushions and armrests, as on the Eldorado. (That would be my preference, but there was an extra charge for it on top of the normal charges for leather upholstery.)
There were actually two types of cloth upholstery available in the 1965 De Ville line. Turquoise, Dark Gray, Midnight Blue, and Sandalwood interiors used the random weave Delta cloth shown in the white Sedan de Ville, but there was also a honeycomb weave Drummond cloth, available in Black, Blue, Bronze, or Green.
I have mixed feelings about the Drummond cloth — it looks very cool in black, but in lighter colors, I don’t think it shows as well as the random weave cloth.
These were very big cars, but while they technically had space for six people, they weren’t terribly comfortable for middle passengers, either front or rear. You could sit three abreast, but you wouldn’t want to except in a pinch. For 1965, Cadillac had made the unusual decision to shift the glove compartment to the center of the dashboard, which carved out a big chunk of knee room for the right front passenger while ensuring that long-legged middle passengers would bang their knees on the glove box lid.
This was unfortunate given that Cadillac had taken a lot of trouble to reduce the size of the driveshaft tunnel, which was ostensibly to leave more room for passengers’ feet and legs. Even with bench seats, I think the expectation was that this was mostly a four-seater with plenty of room to stretch out.
In back, the rear seat echoed the design of the front. There was decent space for three, but the middle position wasn’t that inviting.
It was worse in the convertibles, which lacked the fold-down rear center armrest of the closed bodies, but had a radio speaker in the top of the seat back. The convertible back seat did look great.
The back seat of the cloth-upholstered Sedan de Ville also contained my one real quibble with the interior design of this car: The repetition of the seat inserts on the front seat back looked cluttered, not helped by this car’s somewhat tatty condition.
The Fleetwood Sixty Special was more graceful in this area, dividing the seat back upholstery into a series of rectangular biscuits below a panel of wood veneer.
There was no wood veneer on the De Ville in ’65, which is fine by me — the contrasting colors and panels of bright or brushed metal are much more to my taste. Also, Cadillac was still using its traditional color-keyed Tenite steering wheels, which were considerably more attractive than the often disagreeably cheap-looking plastic wheels that followed.
I’m more partial to the smart-looking three-spoke version, which was specified with the tilt and telescope steering wheel, an $89.48 option the white and turquoise car doesn’t have.
The white and turquoise car also lacks air conditioning, which I would consider a deal-breaker on a new Cadillac, but might be just as well on a six-decade-old collector car. (I for one am not up to grappling with the mysteries of early Cadillac Comfort Control air conditioning!) The clock, a Cadillac standard feature, was redesigned for 1965; as the dealer information emphasizes, it is an attractive instrument.
Speaking of instruments — while I’d prefer a full set of round gauges supplemented with lights, this was a pleasingly designed execution of the traditional Cadillac instrument panel, with the instruments front and center, reasonably large, and legible. Also, Cadillac in 1965 still provided a coolant temperature gauge, deleted in 1969 in a fit of penny-pinching. Whether it’s better to have gauges or warning lights for oil pressure or battery is arguable, but I wouldn’t want to be without a working coolant temperature gauge on a car of this vintage.
This kind of mid-century modern automotive interior was fast going out of fashion by the mid-1960s. The Great Brougham Epoch had begun — the future of American luxury cars was more ornate and sensual, with silky brocades, embroidered crests, and lots of wood (even if it was fake), eventually giving way to the gaudy crushed velour and neoclassical flourishes of the ’70s. Cadillac was already moving in that direction, but for the moment, it was limited to the Fleetwood Sixty Special and Brougham.
It would be a few more years before that trend hit the De Ville line, bringing with it a deplorable decline in interior quality. In 1965, however, it all seemed like smooth sailing for Cadillac’s most popular line, with crisp, clean, tasteful design that still makes these cars among the most satisfying of their breed and their time.
Related Reading
Curbside Classic: 1965-66 Cadillac Sedan DeVille – The King’s Last Stand (by Laurence Jones)
Museum Classic: 1965 Cadillac Sedan DeVille – Nothing Missing but the Garage Space (by Aaron65)
1965 Cadillac DeVille Convertible – So Obviously Cadillac (by Eric703)
1968 And 1969 Cadillac Coupe De Ville: Were These The Tipping Point For Cadillac Quality And Style? (by me)
My all time favorite year for a Cadillac. Under-stated and elegant.
I was 15 in 1965 and car-crazy. Absolutely LOVED the ’65 Coupe de Ville and still consider it the most perfectly and beautifully proportioned CADDY ever! I had the AMT model, left it white and would study it endlessly. It was my inspiration as I drew cars as a hobby always aiming for the perfect look. A song lyric by Prince comes to mind for the ’65…”Nothing compares to you”.
Very nice and reasonably tasteful. I like the white / green and blue / white. My preference is white / red–the combo from the first car I remember.
Ultimately I prefer the ’65 Lincoln for it’s classy restraint and the Imperial despite being compromised by its dated windshield.
What a beautiful car. For my money 1965 represented peak GM styling on all the full size cars.
I get the feeling the huge array of available colors and upholstery was a major selling point for Cadillac, and a reason buyers were willing to pay extra for a Cadillac instead of a Buick or Olds. You really do feel like you’re getting your car rather than just something off-the-rack.
If you’ve been following modern Cadillac, you’ll know about the “Curated by Cadillac” program they’ve recently offered on some of their cars and SUVs. For an extra $50,000 or so, you can special-order a Cadillac in any of over 160 paint colors, and select from a multitude of upholstery fabrics, colors, and trim materials – in other words, the sort of aesthetic choices that were available for free in the 1960s (or at least at a low cost) when you ordered your Cadillac.
As for the ’65, this does seem like the last time Cadillac was arguably the best luxury car in the world, yet it leaves me a bit cold. I like the lack of plastic in the interior, but there’s maybe too much exposed metal for my tastes; I’d prefer some more padded surfaces. (Cadillac has finally become competitive in recent years again, but more due to their powertrains (both combustion and electric) and handling than interior quality which is still disappointing. I sat in a CT4 and CT5 recently and had you covered the badges and told me I was in a Nissan or such, I’d believe it.)
I’ve noticed that some of those colors Cadillac offers are similar to some of these 60s colors too – I’ve spotted the turquoise as well as what looking like some Firemist colors.
$50k is too rich for me, but I’d do it for another $10-15k on top of a CT4 Blackwing.
The featured car is a real looker, but the interior is what interests me. In 1965, Cadillac was still the standard of the world. Compared to later Cadillacs, the 1965 cars were much better fitted. An example is my 1979 Sedan DeVille. While it does have a decent interior, the seats are really no better than a Caprice and the plastics (especially the fake wood) are nothing to write home about. GM did it for volume and ended up almost killing their brand.
We often lament the lack of interior color options on modern cars, and this article posits the theory that abundance of choice was a selling point for Cadillac in its era. At the same time, Cadillac’s production line managers,and the parts buyers, and dealers ordering cars to stock their lots must have been overwhelmed with choice. This was before “just in time” ordering of parts, and I have to imagine there were lots and lots of leftover interior parts with each model year change.
I favor the 1965 Chrysler New Yorker interior but this looks very nice as well. I prefer it in white for the contrast with other interior components.
As a true Cadillac buff and having owned many (both new and used), I can see a 1965 or 1966 in my future. Of those two, I’d prefer the 1966 for what I feel is a little cleaner looking front end. But I just love the long straight lines of these cars.
We were not a Cadillac family. About as far away from a Cadillac as you could get actually. Think 1959 Rambler American. However in 1966, my dad actually received a red ’65 Cadillac convertible as his company car.
His boss – the owner of the company – usually awarded himself a new Cadillac every 2-3 years. For 1965, he choose the aforementioned red convertible. I recall it as having every option Cadillac offered. Automatic temperature control AC? Check. Cruise Control? Check. Power everything including vent windows and antenna? Check.
So how did my dad end up with this car before it was even a year old? His company Ford Ranch Wagon was approaching 100k miles. Normal car for a salesman like my dad was a Ford, Chevy or Plymouth wagon. Sometimes even a Mercury, but it was whatever the boss could get a deal on. The boss was evidently somewhat of a car guy. My dad said he enjoyed personally selecting the cars for his small company fleet. He wasn’t cheap, but he also wasn’t prone to extravagances like giving his salesmen Cadillacs.
According to my dad, the boss had parked his Cadillac at O’Hare airport for a week while on a business trip somewhere. When he got back, Chicago weather had covered the car with sleet and ice. After breaking off a key in the door lock, he had to call AAA to open the car for him.
He got in and the car started, but wouldn’t move. Evidently Cadillacs had some sort of vacuum operated parking brake release that was supposed to automatically let go when the car was put into gear. It didn’t work and the boss had already dismissed the AAA assistance. Rather than call them back, he took his frustrations out on the Cadillac by kicking a big hole through the lower plastic dashboard above the foot operated parking brake. Whatever he did, it worked and he got the Cadillac moving.
After that experience, he was so done with the car. He promptly ordered a new ’66 Lincoln. Knowing my dad always had always admired the car, he offered it to him and said he’d trade in the Ford instead of the Cadillac. My dad jumped at the offer and brought the Cadillac home from work one day. He loved that car. It never gave him any problem. Even the parking brake release always worked properly though the big gaping hole the boss had kicked through the lower dashboard was never fixed. The only annoyance I remember was my dad complaining about was the location of the middle AC outlet right above the ash try. When the AC was on, it would blow the ashes from his cigarettes all over the car.
I was too young to ever drive the car, but it sure was a pleasure to ride in it. It was a shame that being a company car prevented its use on family vacations. It was infinitely more comfortable than our Rambler. In retrospect, I wonder how my dad felt when he’d drive our Rambler for things like family vacations and going to church. It must have been such a let down after driving the Cadillac for work related travel.
That’s a great story to read Rob.
If memory serves me correctly, I believe there was a manual parking brake release under the dash just above the parking brake itself. When the boss kicked the lower dash, it probably manually released it. But I’m just trying to picture some older guy sitting in the seat and being able to kick that dash enough to put a hole in it. haha.
Yes, your memory is correct: There was a manual release lever on the upper right part of the parking brake pedal assembly.
My memory of reading reviews from the period is that quite a few cars suffered from ashtray below a/c vent syndrome. My 68 Chrysler was that way too, but I had quit smoking by the time I owned it.
I am convinced that we (nor any future generations) will ever see cars comparable to what was available from Detroit in the mid sixties. This is a perfect example of that.
When I was younger, I considered the 65 as the beginnings of Cadillac’s bland period. As I have gotten older, I have come to appreciate the 65-66 much more. That standard steering wheel looks like the one from my 63 Fleetwood.
This kind of mid-century modern car interior feels disconnected from the Neo-Gothic style of the exterior—just as disconnected as the communication between the engineers who lowered the transmission tunnel and the interior designers who stuck the glovebox in the center.
We had a family hand-me-down ’66 Sedan de Ville that had been well used but also well maintained, and it served us faithfully until frame rot became unrepairable and we had to retire it. It was a wonderful car, very reliable even at its advanced age, rode and drove well, and wasn’t terrible on gas (relatively speaking), It had the Turbo-Hydramatic (Turbo 400) transmission with the switch-pitch torque converter which made a wonderful complement to the 429 engine. That car was a treat to drive. When the frame got too far gone to fix, we were offered a ’76 Sedan de Ville at a good price to settle an estate. It should have been a good car, but was a pale imitation of the ’66. I can’t think of a single way the ’76 excelled, compared to the ’66. GM dropped the ball when Cadillac became a fancy clone of all the other full size GM cars, and not a division unto itself. A bygone era in every way!
If you want Rolls-Royce/Mercedes Benz 600 cabin ambience with REAL wood and genuine leather, go for a 1966 Fleetwood Brougham; Cadillac’s absolute postwar pinnacle of approaching the high-end European cars for looks, feel, and build quality. Better yet, it was not a cheap copy of trying to imitate them, either! It was a true Cadillac design all the way.