Today’s MT vintage review checks out a trio of top American luxury models from 1969, one each from the Big 3. There are two 2-doors, the Cadillac Coupe de Ville, and the Imperial, then a 4-door Lincoln Continental. All were loaded with options and ready to fulfill their luxury mission, each being the best their parent company had to offer. Of the trio, which one would MT pick as their ‘Status Enhancer’?
Of the three, only the Imperial was new for ’69. The Coupe de Ville was nearing the end of its ’65-’70 cycle, and the Continental was in the last year of its long-running ’61-’69 body. Thanks to hindsight, we know Cadillac would remain the public’s favorite for some time. Yet, Lincoln was gaining steam thanks to their ’68 Mark III, which had injected a neo-classical approach that would redefine the brand. Meanwhile, the Imperial was reaching its last few years, with Chrysler nearly done with its efforts to establish the upscale marque.
Rather than the usual performance-oriented review, the comparison focused on the needs of the luxury class and how well each model fulfilled its intended mission. In many respects, the contenders were found to be pretty equal, at least when it came to options and accommodations. All interiors were comfortable, luxurious, and loaded with neat geegaws. The Imperial’s interior deviated some by having bucket seats and a more driver-oriented dashboard. All three got some criticism for rear quarters not being as spacious as their exteriors suggested, with the Imperial faring the worst.
Out of the three, the Imperial was the ‘driver’s car,’ and got praise for handling like a vehicle ‘half its weight.’ However, reviewers acknowledged few buyers in the segment would care about such matters. In that department, both the DeVille and the Continental handled as ponderously as their dimensions suggested, the latter being the most unruly with lots of roll and pitch. Acceleration and braking numbers were good and rather competitive among the trio, though the Lincoln suffered a good amount of wheel hop.
As explained, cold performance numbers were not the comparison’s point. Rather, the subjective values that defined the luxury class. In that area, fit, finish, and snob appeal played bigger roles. The Imperial fared the poorest in these respects, with a general lack of quality that was ‘annoying.’ Quality was also slipping at GM by that point, as MT found the ‘vaunted Cadillac has lost some of its quality aspects from 1968.’ However, when it came to snob appeal, the Cadillac brand still had it in spades. By their stated goals, the reviewers acknowledged the de Ville was the best ‘Status Symbol’ of the group.
In a bit of a twist, the Continental was ultimately the reviewer’s preferred ride, thanks to ‘its silent ride, solid construction, and overall quality.’ And while Lincoln was to remain number 2 in America’s luxury wars, its overall numbers were about to grow. Partly from the qualities found on the ’69 Continental, but mostly thanks to the flashier luxury approach found in their Mark III.
Further reading:
Curbside Classic: 1969 Lincoln Continental – Missed It By THAT Much
Vintage Review: 1969 Cadillac Coupe DeVille – Golden Goose
Vintage Review: 1972 Imperial LeBaron – Road Test Reviews The Facelifted Fancy Fuselage
Gosh, am I embarrassed! All these years, I’ve been adamant the car was an “Imperial LeBaron” and it was a product of the Chrysler Corporation.
But no. Here it is, in an “in period” article, clearly listed in the spec charts as a “Chrysler Imperial LeBaron”.
Somebody get me a rag so I can wipe the egg off my face.
You’d have been right, prior to 1967.
He was right, and would have been through 1975, the last year for the Imperial Division. M/T got it wrong. Typos like this were all-too common.
Aside from the fact that none of these 3 cars is the type of car I would ever have bought, each has its own problems. The Lincoln, aside from the 2 door body style, was fairly old by 1969. Yes, luxury cars are conservative and are supposed to age gracefully, but this car was at its sell by date. The Imperial looks quite imposing and impressive…on its own. However, it is let down by, IMHO, better looking examples of the then new styling trend by its “sister” brands. I would rather have a same year Chrysler, or even a top line Plymouth than the borderline over the top styled Imperial. Iffy build quality doesn’t help matters.
Finally, Cadillac. I probably would have dismissed any Cadillac of any year as just being too obvious. From the late 50s onwards, Cadillac has always struck me as the de facto “look at me, I have money, and I am important” choice in a car.
Therefore, if I had to choose 1 of these 3 nameplates I would choose the Imperial…but only as a 4 door.
The replacement Lincoln in 1970 was functionally a better car in every way than the ’69. It just didn’t have the personality of the old suicides. I also make the same observation re the 1967 T-Bird. The Glamour Bird was a dynamically superior car to the Flair bird, it just didn’t have the appeal of the earlier cars.
My head says take the Cadillac for prestige & resale value. However the Imperial is compelling, also. It also had an effect on my 10 year old self for another reason. Kenny Shields, the lead singer of a future Streetheart and a musical cohort of my older brother and his buddies on the Saskatoon entertainment scene, was severely injured in one in a spectacular crash in Saskatoon in the spring of 1970. For some reason, he was riding in the back of his own car, letting some idiot drive. The impact tore the stub B-pillar out, and hurled him to the pavement as the Imperial spun wildly.
It sidelined his career for several years.
All of Saskatoon was saddened by news of the wreck. Since then, I always kind of wanted a triple black 4-door ’69 as a tribute car.
I had a ’69 Imperial. White, white vinyl, gold/tan interior. Loved that car. Never put it to a crash test, though.
I bought it in Estevan Saskatchewan in 1977 for $1200, sold it about six months later in Rouyn Quebec for $2000, even though my dad put a dent in it.
That means Sask is down two ’69 Imps.
Odd that the Lincoln was the fastest to 60 despite being the heaviest.
Not odd at all. 460s rule!
The “wild card” might be dual exhaust. It was optional on the Caddy and part of the TNT option on the Imperial. If I recall all of the ’61-’69 Lincolns had it as standard equipment.
I’ve owned several mid 60’s to mid 70’s large luxury cars with the biggest engines and the largest single improvement to performance and economy was adding dual exhaust. Day and night difference.
I heartily agree about the impact of having dual exhaust.
When comparing ( bench racing? ) the 3 cars here, we can factor in the engine specifications given ( in gross HP ), the weights, the gear ratios, but the Lincoln would surely be packing the most net HP. 16.2 in the quarter and a trap speed of nearly 86? Wow. That’s moving with alacrity for something weighing in at over 5K pounds.
Based on 1/4 mile speeds and curb weights for the Imperial, Lincoln and Cadillac, horsepower ratings are 215, 260 and 220 respectively. The Lincoln 460 is producing significantly more power than the other engines even if you were to subtract 10 to 20 horsepower for dual exhausts. I am of the opinion that Cadillac increased the displacement of their engine for the Eldorado and subsequently all models to 500 cubic inches to compensate for the 472 V8’s power deficit when compared to the 460.
The only published specifications I could find for single exhaust verses dual exhaust was from Pontiac (1972-1974). Pontiac had dual exhaust options even on some of their two barrel engines.
The difference on the Pontiac 455/4bbl engine was 30 HP in 1972 and 35 HP in ’73 and ’74. Bear in mind that these are all SAE “net” figures. By the “gross” method used at the time of this road test I’d bet a dual exhaust was worth at least 40 HP or more. That would be a difference you would feel and easily see in the acceleration times.
Agree that duals were standard on the Lincoln and the Imperial with the 440 TNT, but I don’t think they were even optional on the Cadillac from 1965 or so into the eighties. Always seemed weird that a 500 cubic inch engine would,only have a single exhaust.
I don’t recall a 1969 Cadillac having dual exhaust as an option. I think the last year for that was 1960.
The performance figures make it pretty clear that emissions controls were making the gross power and torque ratings increasingly unrepresentative of actual output. The Cadillac isn’t THAT far behind the Continental, but given the difference in claimed horsepower and torque plus a 428-pound weight advantage, it shouldn’t have been behind at all.
As the previous commenters noted, the Lincoln had a full dual exhaust system and the Cadillac had a single exhaust. I would guess that made a 10-20 hp difference in net ratings. As you know, these gross ratings were essentially irrelevant.
And then there’s also the inherent production variations.
And as you have written on occasion about the power consumption of automatic transmissions, whatever advantage the Lincoln had in acceleration and attributed by some to it having dual exhausts was lost to the Lincoln’s C6 transmission.
Besides the discussion on subject Models, In 1977, I fell in love with the Cadilllac Fleetwood and till today, Her mesmerising beauty, elegance, luxury and looks remains unforgettable. A “Miss world” titled car of those days.
Since I was only 2 years old when this comparison was done, I was more concerned about my next feeding than cars! But only 8 short years later, I was hooked on cars and especially the Cadillac brand. My parents purchased their first one, a year old 1975 Sedan De Ville, in 1976 and the rest is history.
So it would seem like my go-to would be the Caddy. Not here. In fact, I would take the Imperial based on looks and personality. I’ve never cared for this vintage Lincoln Continental and just plain dislike the suicide doors even on the Rolls Royce of today. To me it’s just a silly. As for the Caddy, I much prefer the 1965/66 lines and find the 67 to 69 to be strange making the C pillar and rear quarter ugly. Now driving may be a different story and I’ve never driven that vintage Lincoln or Imperial, but I did own a 1967 Coupe De Ville once. I didn’t keep it long because it just didn’t do much for me.
On at least the original style1961-63 Lincolns the suicide rear doors were actually necessary to avoid having to crawl in and out of the back seat. The 1964 facelift added three inches to the wheelbase, all in the back seat area, plus back to flat glass and a different greenhouse and rear side window shape. Then a complete rebody in 1966 based on the same platform.
If the lady in the photo was sitting back in the seat and turned to her left she would be looking at the sail panel, not out the window. The short rear side window and wide sail panel were intended to evoke the look of the two door hardtop Continental Mk II.
I’m partial to the Caddie, having owned my ’69 for 32 years, but wouldn’t turn down any of them. I can’t recall the last time that I’ve seen a ’69 Imperial or Continental in the wild. I would also regard the performance figures as approximate only. A number of manufacturer’s would go over the complete car or submit a ringer if they knew that it was going to be reviewed by a prominent car magazine, so combined with production variances, the numbers shown are in the ballpark and not gospel. The only fact that you can take away is that you’d be purchasing a ton of premium leaded fuel, whatever the choice.
Love the Fleetwoods of this vintage–the Devilles’ greenhouses are too small. Did you remove the vinyl, or is this a rare 60 Special non-Brougham?
Do you use a lead substitute, or have you had your valve seals hardened? If the former, does the substitute label say if it ruins a catalytic converter? I realize you don’t have a converter, I’m just curious.
Ralph
Mine is a 60 Special, therefore no vinyl roof, rear footstools, nor rear reading lights. They do add a wreath and crest escutcheon on the rear quarters like the 75 series. I did toy with the lead substitute for a few years, but rolled the dice that the cars rarely see over 2000 rpm, and with the limited yearly mileage, it didn’t seem to be an issue. I would be more inclined to add a lead substitute if the vehicle revved high or was put under a heavy load. I use synthetic oil in the sump, and premium leaded without ethanol, whenever available. So far, I haven’t had any valve recession or engine issues with the fleet. Engine issues so far were confined to valve seal replacement to stop smoking, more so on my Chevy engines, but I do have a few that burn oil and would be considered “tired” by some. I just check oil more often and treat them easy.
I had experience with two of these contenders as 7-10 year old, used cars. I had a Cadillac and a Lincoln. I had a ’66 Lincoln sedan and later my Dad had a ’69 coupe. I also had a ’70 Coupe de Ville. I thought that the Lincolns used higher quality interior appointments. Lots more die cast and chrome, the CdV had a more modern, color coordinated interior, which meant more colored plastic. The Lincoln had a more traditional interior. I liked the Cadillac’s big, high back seats, and the cockpit like driver’s compartment. Both cars were similar in performance, but the dramatic styling of the CdV was just more satisfying.
I never had any experience with Imperials, they were usually reserved for Mopar fans.
Driving these cars was a lot of fun, they were big, but so was everything else, and the size was not as apparent, since they were just a bit bigger than Impalas and Ford LTDs. I was a big car fan back then, and had no interest in compacts or sports cars.
I once had that article but let it go when I moved from Cass county Mi to South Bend IN… Wishing I had kept the magazine since my father had owned the ’69 Imperial LeBaron coupe when I was 13 yrs. old. That car was beighe with a dark brown vinyl roof & brown leather interior. My dad breged about driving to Detroit on the toll Rd. going over 100 mph ( breively) while my Grandma fell asleep in the front passenger seat ( which were set up as bucket seats with a folding down armrest. ) I mostly rode in the back seat behind my Mother’s eat & I didn’t have any problem with the “roominess”….in fact, the car was awesome with a reading lamp cigarette lighter (remember them?)……and, rear speakers near the back window for better sound. I remember the sequiental taillamp motor could be heard back there inspite of all the insulation and trunk carpeting! What a luxury car and I got to drive it once from South Bend to Cassopolis when I had. a driver’s permit with an adult. Miss that road car & will always remember it!
The Lincoln, in addition to being the heaviest and having the most powerful engine, had the shortest 60-0 stopping distance ever recorded by Motor Trend to date. That distance was not bested until they tested a Pantera.
The skid marks behind the Lincoln are like what I assume anti-lock brakes would produce. Did they give MT a research vehicle?
No that is axle tramp or axle hop and it was not uncommon on cars with leaf springs. Leaf springs in addition to supporting the weight of the car must also locate the rear axle and control braking and acceleration forces. In the case of the Lincoln, the rear axle was trying to wrap the springs around it. The windup and release of this force on the rear axle is causing the tires to jump up and down along the pavement. An excellent example of axle hop can be seen on Steve McQueen’s Mustang while reversing during the chase scene in Bullit.
I’ve only glanced at this article (no reading of the comments either) and will guess that the Imperial, being the newest of the bunch, was deemed the best. Amirite?
Also, did Bigfoot step on that Caddy in the lead illustration — looks squashed.
These impressions sort of echoed my own when it came to these vehicles most of the way through the 70s. The Chryslers were the most modern, and were the best drivers, but felt cheaper. The Lincolns were the most traditional and were the quietest, with the best interiors, but handled like pigs. The Cadillacs looked like Cadillacs, with handling, ride and interiors that were kind of halfway between Lincoln and Chrysler.
Growing up, i used to shine and show my grandmother’s ’68 Coupe de Ville. I loved that car with all my heart and still do. I’m grateful to read an in-period article to find out how these cars were thought of in their day and hour they stacked up to their competition.
To me though, the highlight of the article is the photo of the bikini clad woman in the Caddy’s trunk. Maybe a thinly veiled nod to the mafioso image of the car, or just a 54 year old version of “banana for scale”. LOL
Like they say: “It was a different time then”.
Thanks for the article!
For resale value, I would have bought the Cadillac back then, plus it was more modern in suspension and power train than Continental or Imperial. But, Cadillac interiors after ’66 started to look cheap.
Dad had a ’64 Continental, solid, quiet and so well crafted. So, my real choice is the suicide door Continental, old platform, but updated power train by ’69.
I would go with the Imperial, hands down. I love the dramatic styling and rarity. So much that I own one!
What is a 76 mark 5 Lincoln worth today? It runs and has a strait body on it. No 🧐 ngs or dents and the headlights work fine
The entire premise of that road test was weak, and I have to wonder if those guys just wanted to go for a joy ride in the new Imperial coupe and check out the Lincoln’s suicide doors.
For starters, the status symbol thing… hasn’t that gotten a bit old? Did it ever occur to the people who accuse others of being status conscious that, at least with automobiles, maybe they just like the car and can afford to buy it? Sure, there are some who are driven in whole or part by appearances, but most folks just want to drive what they like, and maybe feel a little pride.
And the choice of body style… coupes? Except for Lincoln, of course. I can understand the Caddy, the 2-door take rates being maybe 60 – 70% of the 4-door models. But the Imperial coupe, which was bought less than 1/3 as often as the 4-door? And the Lincoln came in a 2-door, so why wasn’t it chosen? And if expensive American luxury coupes were to be the focus, why not the Eldorado and Mark III? Had the testers already had there fun in those cars? Or maybe Imperial and Lincoln wanted Motor Trend to help advertise the cars that were piling up on the dealers’ lots.
After years of hardship, our family of eight finally moved up to Lincolns, the second being a ’69 maroon sedan with black vinyl top. A kindergartener, I was the first kid to go for a ride in it, to the doctor for a severe ear ache. I remember both the car and pain vividly. My father was self-employed, and Lincolns back then were, at least in my parents’ eyes, more the businessman’s car whereas Caddies tended to be driven by doctors and lawyers. And Lincolns were more mid-Century modern, which aligned with my mother’s tastes (though she would have been fine with a Ford or Chevy). Lincolns were rare, and Imperials even rarer, and the ’69 Lincoln was bit frumpy by then though still distinctive. I remember my dad saying he got a good deal on it, buying it late in the model year after the ’70 models had arrived. Business always first…
I had a good friend whose dad had traded a 1969 Chrysler New Yorker 4 door (because it rattled) for a 1969 Lincoln Continental 4 door. I had ridden in the New Yorker a few times but had never ridden in the Lincoln. One Saturday, his dad was going to take us to the movies. I was getting excited about riding in the Lincoln, since I had never ridden in one before. When they came to pick me up, his dad was driving a 1970 Galaxie 500. Boy, was I disappointed. I thought that he had traded his wife’s 1968 Impala for the Galaxie 500. I was REALLY disappointed when I found out that he traded the Lincoln Continental for the Galaxie 500. It seems his dad had hit some financial problems and had to give up the nice Lincoln, and I never got to ride in it, with its suicide doors.