No, this Cadillac was not equipped with cylinder deactivation, a diesel or a tiny aluminum V8; that would have to wait another decade or two, with unfortunate consequences. It wasn’t its fuel economy that caused Car Life to dub this the “Economy Cadillac”; it was the fact that the Calais was the lowest-price Cadillac one could buy, and given its fairly extensive standard equipment it wasn’t all that much more than a comparably equipped lesser-brand car. And there were also two other significant factors: Cadillac’s superior resale value and its stellar rep for reliability. These really did make a Cadillac quite affordable to a growing segment of the middle and working classes. And how can you put a dollar value on its prestige factor and pride of ownership?
For what it’s worth, the Calais’ fuel economy (12-15 mpg) was actually a bit better than average too. Bonus points.
Even the low-end Calais came standard with the basics that others were still paying extra for, including a heater/defroster(!), electric clock, Turbo Hydra-Matic, front center fold-down arm rest, power brakes and steering, cornering and various convenience lights, remote control side mirror, seat belts, the 429 CID V8 rated at 340 hp, variable speed wipers, and more. CL estimated that these would add at least $1200 to a lesser car.
As to its driving dynamics, the Cadillac’s superpower was cruising effortlessly at 75+ mph, wit the a/c on, please. Even mountain grades and hot weather never brought the engine temperature needle from its happy place one third way up from the cold end of the gauge. Cadillac had long and well mastered the thermodynamic basics.
The new-for ’66 variable-ratio power steering was lauded, with its mere 2.4 turns lock-to-lock (previously 3.6 turns). This increased road feel as well as making parking and low speed maneuvering even more effortless. No need for a necker’s knob.
The 6-way power seats and the “tilt and telescope” steering column made it also effortless to find a comfortable position no matter ones build. Back in my hitchhiking days, I used to get a kick out of seeing how various drivers adjusted their tilt steering wheels, some choosing a bus-like near horizontal position and others having it vertical right down in their crotch. You don’t see that much anymore; the tilt wheel was a relatively new luxury toy that folks loved to play with. Until it got old…
And as for the power seats, there’s nothing worse if you’re tall like me than getting into the passenger side of a car with power bench seats and having a short driver get in and then try to crush you into the dashboard. It’s perhaps the single worst fault of bench seats.
Cadillacs (along with all the other large GM cars) had all-new chasses and bodies in 1965; the ’66 only got a few minor tweaks in body and engine mounts to extract another iota of smoothness and silence form the car. As if you could actually tell. Unlike the ’64 Cadillac tested by Motor Trend, Car Life apparently didn’t exactly wring out this ’66 on challenging terrain and unpaved mountain roads. That’s a decided change that happened right about this time: it finally dawned on car magazines that the overwhelming majority Cadillac buyers actually weren’t likely to drive their cars balls-out down twisty dirt roads in the mountains or flat-out on the highways of Nevada. So they stopped pretending otherwise, although in previous times that might have been more the case; now those buyers bought a Mercedes or such.
The Cadillac’s big drum brakes were not really up to snuff, unsurprisingly, with considerable fade in consecutive 80-0 braking tests. CL notes that it would take a set of “remarkable brakes” to do that without fade, but notes that these actually are available on competitor’s cars. GM was such a disc brake laggard; corporate brain fade.
Cadillac’s Automatic Climate Control was then still a marvel of the modern world, and the tester’s (cool) heads bowed down in veneration to its miraculous thermostat dial. And then they wrote a long detailed explanation of how it worked and how to operate it. It’s not quite worthy of repetition. You had to be there.
More lavish praise was heaped on its many other convenience doo-hickies, including a seat warmer! That warranted another paragraph of how the special conductive carbon yarn developed by Union Carbide Corporation is woven into a special cloth installed in the seat backs and cushions. Holy bun warmers!
Automatic Level Control was an accessory of special interest; it brought the car back to level with up to 500 lbs in the back seat or trunk. Perfect for mobsters, as they rarely hauled more than two bodies in the trunk; wouldn’t want to tip off the police.
This ’66 was a tick slower than the ’64 tested by MT, taking 9.4 seconds to 60 instead of 8.5. Their weights were roughly the same, as were their drive trains and rear axle ratios, so we’ll chalk up the difference to the various variables intrinsic to testing two different cars. Or the accuracy of their testing regime and instruments. Or certain astrological influences. A 9.4 seconds was still quite brisk for the times, so more than good enough, and still decidedly quicker than a Lincoln or Imperial, never mind a Mercedes (until the 6.3 came along).
CL left the last but most likely the most important ingredient of the cost-benefit for last: pride of ownership, the intangible value of seeing a Cadillac each morning when the owner opens the garage. That one alone tipped the scales for a whole lot of Cadillac buyers.
Related CC reading:
Vintage MT Road Test: 1964 Cadillac Sedan DeVille – The Fastest And Best Classic Cadillac
Museum Classic: 1965 Cadillac Sedan DeVille – Nothing Missing but the Garage Space
Curbside Classic: 1965-66 Cadillac Sedan DeVille – The King’s Last Stand
We could said then one big change for Cadillac in 1966 is the 75 limousine who got a new body where the 1965 model still used the basic 1959 body. https://www.hagerty.com/media/opinion/1965-cadillac-fleetwood-seventy-five-yes-it-really-is-a-65/
https://oldcarbrochures.org/United%20States/Cadillac/1966_Cadillac/1966_Cadillac_Brochure/slides/1966_Cadillac-05.html
“Economy”? The vehicle as tested sold for $6077. If you plug that into an inflation calculator, that comes to $58,205 in 2024 dollars. The least expensive Caddy you can get in 2024 is in the high 30’s to low 40’s.
@Nick: That was the price as tested. What does your inflation calculator (if that’s even convertable between gold-backed dollars and Petro ones) say about the base price itself?
$48k for the base price in 2023 dollars. That’s with hand crank windows, no a/c, no radio, etc. A stripper Cadillac, if that’s your thing.
It’s really a rather meaningless comparison
I had no idea you could get a new Cadillac in the mid to high 30’s when the average new car sells for so much more. I just looked at a recent issue of MT. The base Cadillac CT4 is priced in the middle of the latest Honda Accord’s price range, although I must admit that still doesn’t make it as attractive a buy as the Accord.
This was supposed to be the “economy” model, but after they added all the options you might as well have ordered a DeVille. By the way, the Calais came with roll-up windows.
Which is exactly what most people did – the DeVille vastly outsold the Calais – who wants to be seen in a “cheap” Cadillac?
I would, just to be different. Besides, a skinnier Caddy without a vinyl top and being a two-door hardtop sort of reflects a more viril image of its owner, just short of owning a gentleman’s sportscar of the Wildcat/Starfire/Grand Prix in corporate house variety.
Because one of these would be rare, one in museum shape should command a higher price than a DeVille in equal condition
They’re not that rare, and DeVilles command a higher price today.
My thoughts exactly . The old car sales trick of hooking prospect Ibuyers in with ” A Cadillac for under 5000 Dollars” loss leader,,non on lot and order only with a long wait, and then upper grading them to a more expensive model. Still happens today….
The relative unpopularity of the Calais continues to baffle me. This was an era when Cadillac was near the top of its game, the car more Americans likely aspired to than any other, a brand that outsold every other luxury car sold in the US put together. I would have thought there’d be a good market for the least expensive entry into Cadillac ownership, especially since there was nothing obvious showing everyone you bought the relatively-cheap one. But no, most buyers ponied up even more for a de Ville. One of my neighbors had a ’75 or 76 Calais and it looked like any other big Caddy from the outside, perhaps with a tad less chrome if you looked carefully. Inside though, there was a disappointingly plain-looking cloth bench seat that looked out of place in a Caddy; more like something you’d see in a Nova or Bel Air. Perhaps that was the Calais’ turn-off that repelled buyers. The seating in the ’66 shown here looks rather plain too.
Automatic climate control has become fairly commonplace by now, but there’s still no consensus as to the best way to do it. Some modern systems, like this Cadillac, try to control everything with no user input. My last car had thermostatically-controlled HVAC – it would keep the temperature you selected, but fan speed and which air ducts to use were still manually controlled. Others let one of both of those be automated, sometimes with manual overrides when you want them. And there are two-, three-, and four-zone systems that let each passenger choose their own temperature (GM’s early dual-zone system worked by letting the passenger add or subtract several degrees from the main setting rather than directly inputting the desired temperature). Bun warmers have spread to the back seat, and ventilated and even air-conditioned seats are a thing now too.
I had the 1958 version of the “Economy Cadillac”. It was the Series 62 “Short Deck” model, 8″ shorter than the Sedan de Ville (all in the trunk). It had manual windows (which I preferred because they won’t break), manual seats, and rather plain but well-made upholstery. Wipers were vacuum. No A/C. It did have the Autronic Eye though (which worked). And a power antenna for the radio.
Not fast compared to the ’66–I think Tom McCahill got a 0-60 time of 13 sec. You had only 365 cubic inches hauling a 4800 lb. car. A big ivory steering wheel with chrome horn ring, and more like 4 turns lock-to-lock. Gas mileage, maybe 10 or 11 MPG (premium)–not what I would call “economical”!
One that got away, circa 1989, a ’66 Fleetwood that was a bit too rusty to fix up.
Another ’66 Calais looked at in the early 90’s. I think that they were asking $2k, and the car was quite straight, but I figured that I already had too many cars.
Rear view.
My parents had a 66 DeVille – fantastic car in terms of build quality and comfort. Cruising at 70 mph it got a steady 12 mpg whether the A/C was on or not. When Nixon lowered the speed limit to 55 mph in response to the oil crisis, the Caddy mpg shot all the way up to 13.
“And as for the power seats, there’s nothing worse if you’re tall like me than getting into the passenger side of a car with power bench seats and having a short driver get in and then try to crush you into the dashboard. It’s perhaps the single worst fault of bench seats.”
I was only 5′ 8″ in high school (I’m a little shorter now), and my very-short friend Sherry had a ’72 Coupe de Ville. I still had to ride in the back seat or my knees would touch the dash. It was only a short time later that her parents gave in and bought her a nearly-new Firebird.
One question – the article says “Hydra-Matic”, but wouldn’t this be the the TH400 introduced in ’64? The specs do say “Vairable vane torque converter” and there’s nothing listed under fourth gear.
“the article says “Hydra-Matic””
I think by the mid 60’s, “Hydra-Matic” was to GM 3+ speed automatic transmissions what “Kleenex” was to tissues. People were so used to the term that they failed to use whatever name modified the basic thing. And you are right, the THM that was in this car was the one that came out in 1964.
My memory is a bit vague from that time, but I think the THM came out in 64, but not in the “cheapest” Cadillac model, the Series 62 I think it was called. Only the DeVilles had it.
Yes, it was the THM-400. I’ve added “Turbo” to the text.
Adam Dixon wrote:
“I was only 5′ 8″ in high school (I’m a little shorter now), and my
very-short friend Sherry had a ’72 Coupe de Ville. I still had to
ride in the back seat or my knees would touch the dash. It was
only a short time later that her parents gave in and bought her
a nearly-new Firebird.”
Wow! Same situation here: 5′ 8″ through college, now 5’7″ in my early 50s.
Your experience in that Cadillac was probably more common than you might think.
While Cadillacs – and just about every full-size domestic sedan – were very long
and wide back then, the cabin actually not much longer, from front footwells to
rear seatback cushion, than in modern saloons.
I’d venture to guess that the same measurement, in my 2010(8th generation) Honda Accord, equals or exceeds that measurement in GM’s 1973-77 model year ‘colonnade’ mid-sizers (Monte Carlo, Grand Prix, Cutlass, etc.).
With better engine compartment and front passenger & dash packaging, advantage in space creation has been made of the more aerodynamically raked windshield and rear windows. Chrysler’s ‘cab-forward’ campaign of thirty years ago heralded this new trend toward more legroom in smaller overall vehicle packages.
I know that the distance between the base of my Accord’s windshield to the bottom of its rear window is at least one foot longer than the same measurement in a 1977 downsized Caprice/Impala. That surely translates to several inches more front and rear seat legroom in the aforementioned Accord than in the 1977 downsized “full-size”.
The myth that these were so roomy inside doesn’t hold up. Every time I get into the front seat of a vintage full-size American car, I’m always a bit surprised how snug they actually are. They were just not nearly as space efficient as modern cars.
Paul N:
They probably were spacious to the average sized people of those decades (1940s – 60s).
I think both men and women now average two inches taller than they did in 1960, and avg. about 40lbs heavier. A couple extra inches of height and girth over time can make the interior of a 60 year old Buick seem a tad cozy.
And while I extoll the comfort of the seating in cars of that era, as an adult I can say that by today’s standards, the front bucket seats in my grandpas’s Skylark do lack a little, in size, and overall support. If I were to sit in the drivers seat now, I’m sure my 197 lbs would bottom the cushion out, and nothing one could call lateral support.
I remember one Calais – a 1967 owned by some relatives. It was purchased by an older couple who had come into some money, but did not want to spend more than they had to for a Cadillac. It had the crank windows.
In the early 80s my dad had a rustbucket 67 Calais. White with black leather or vinyl interior. We kids liked the features such as the power windows, power seats, and the little turn signal indicators atop the fenders. I believe it was a bank repo. We were really broke, and he was fixing the exhaust with soup cans. But he couldn’t back it into the hill for clearance like the other cars because of the long low rear end. It wasn’t great in the snow either, though I doubt the tires were the greatest. He removed the fender skirts to clear out snow better, and knowing him they’re probably still in the back of the shed. It had a second battery tray, which he kept a toolbox because he was always having to mess with the engine.
But when it ran well, it certainly had some power. My uncle’s full size Dodge van broke the driveshaft on one of the steepest hills in the area, while running the trap line. His son found some rocks to chock the wheels for the time being. My dad hooked a tow strap to the Calais. First it spun the tires. Then he gave it a little slack and had no problem pulling that van up the hill and back home.
I think the moment “economy” could be attached to a Caddy, the writing was on the wall. Chasing volume destroyed the brands value and image. You would think someone at GM remembered the fate of Packard…
Doesn’t seem to affected Mercedes Benz when they ment to a “Volume Manufacturer” with the A Class and the first generation C Class the 202 series. What hurt Caddies prestige was the 69 models ,all plastic interiors and only beat the Caprice in sound insulation …
As for cheap, plasticky interiors, you may be thinking of the ’71s:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1972-cadillac-coupe-deville-a-beginning-as-well-as-the-beginning-of-the-end/
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/vintage-comparison-test-1971-cadillac-deville-versus-1971-chevy-caprice-rise-of-the-chevrollac/
The Oldsmobile of Cadillacs.
As an Oldsmobile owner, I’ll take that as a compliment. I think ….
Creating a “low end luxury” model is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it increases your sales volume but on the other hand it debases the exclusivity of your branding. Is this car the proto-Cimmaron?
What baffles me is how long it took the big 3 to adopt the split bench seat. Were they so sexist that they always assumed the taller man would be driving??? Yeah not fun if you want your significant other to drive and they are 5’3″ and you are 6′ even.
Cadillac kept the one piece bench seat thru the early 80s as standard, saw a 1981 Coupe Deville equipped as such. Im not even sure if it reclined. Another one of those silly things Detroit didnt put in their cars, leaning back wasnt an option, even in sporty cars with bucket seats back in the 60’s/70’s
As for the Calais, option it up and its only a couple hundred dollars less(or maybe even more depending on options) than a Deville. And the Deville got you a nicer trimmed interior, mainly the cloth upholstrey was A LOT nicer. Seemed like a no brainer to buy the Deville for that reason alone
Cadillac had a less expensive line going back to the 40’s. After the companion make, LaSalle was dropped in 1940, Cadillac had a series 60 and a 62 which continued into the early ’50’s. The DeVille series started with the first two door hardtops. I suppose that the lower priced models were loss leaders to get the curious into the showroom, or to appeal to Depression era babies. I saw an old Cadillac sales video from the mid 50’s that stressed the need to have the Wife find the car that she wants!
Even though lower priced makes like Chevy introduced a/c by the late ’50’s it was rare on those cars and it added almost a quarter of the car’s price.
My ’60’s Cadillac experience bracketed this car, I had a ’64 convertible and a ’70 CdV. Both cars were really good performers, I never had a slow car back then! That’s probably why I’ve never really been attracted to high performance models like muscle cars. I found that my older Cadillacs and Lincolns provided me with all the performance I needed.
Motor Trend published test results in the January issue on a 66 Sedan DeVille they drove across country. The acceleration times for 0-60 and the quarter mile were 11.1 seconds and 17.7 seconds at 74 mph respectively and significantly slower than Car Life’s results. The DeVille weighed approximately 100 pounds more than the Car Life’s Calais and both had 3.21:1 rear axle ratio.
As for the competition, Motor Trend tested the new 1966 Lincoln Continental Coupe in the next month’s issue. The Lincoln’s acceleration times respectively were 10.8 seconds and 18.0 seconds at 80mph. The Lincoln’s new for 66 462CID MEL V8’s rated horsepower and torque were the same as the Cadillac’s but the Lincoln weighed 600 pounds more and had a 2.80:1 rear axle ratio.
Once upon a Time in Hollywood…..
My dad’s first Cadillac was a 1970 Calais coupe. Maroon over black vinyl, it was a nice car with the addition of cruise control , power windows and locks, and not much else.
Until the ring and pinion bearing went out-3 times!
The first was under warranty. The second time, Cadillac sent a man from home office to go over the vehicle. As my memory goes, seems my dad told me that it had something to do with the driveshaft not running true?
Anyway, Cadillac offered him to repair it, under warranty, for 3 years. Which they did. He traded it in on a 1973 Caprice. The salesman from Chevy called to see if he liked his new car, and he said he did. He asked the salesman if they had sold his Caddy. The salesman told him it was stolen from the lot! My dad told him it didn’t go far. He explained that the bearings were on their way out!
The man asked dad why he failed to mention it!! Dad asked “would you have offered me more on trade allowance?!!”
They found the car, with a broken drive shaft on the outer belt of the city!!
Great story.
Currently Reading “On a Clear Day You can See GM.” Based on DeLorean’s comments, volume and market share was key factors in each of the GM divisions. He makes constant comparisons of “Ford did this or Chrysler introduced that” which stole sales from GM. I would image the Calais was the means to gain that incremental sale versus Lincoln or Imperial.
He infers that senior leadership (the 14th Floor of the GM building) had a tin ear and was more focused on volume and cost which was the edit passed down to the various divisions.
“edit” or edict ? .
Just pulling your leg, don’t get angry =8-) .
These truly were outstanding cars and me with my old pickups and VW’s….
“THE STANDARD OF THE WORLD” indeed .
-Nate
It may have been ‘cheap’ but it still was a Cadillac from a time when they made real Cadillacs. In today `s ‘offend nobody’ world, it would be called an ‘entry level’ model. I`ll take it!
I do remember seeing a number of Calais’ in SoCal in the wild. I’m sure they didn’t sell very well, but they made their appearance. For my young, but earnest eyes, the ’66 Caddy Coupe was the most handsome of the 1960s. The changes from 1965, as mentioned, weren’t huge but amassed they made a difference. I can remember liking the padded steering wheel center as something new and different, even though it was on the ’65, as well.
Since Packard was already out of business by this time, Cadillac should have just started a Clipper line to explain why their 1966-1975 line was priced to buy as a six-pack.
In high school my best bud’s mom had a four door ’66 in gold, it was smooth as silk, dead quiet and out ran everything else on the road that wasn’t a Sports Car or Hot Rod .
Doors closed like a bank vault and I worried about getting the shiny cloth seats dirty….
Those really were well built and good looking cars, whales of the road to be sure but rather more nimble than my girlfriends mom’s ’65 Lincoln .
I still don’t like owning / driving land yachts but I surely do miss them, we’ll never, _EVER_ see their likes again more’s the pity =8-( .
-Nate