It’s a reflection of my age and the times, but for me, the 1964 Cadillac was the last one I really desired. In 1965 I became twelve, and saw the world with increasingly different eyes, which were now increasingly focused on imports and some of the smaller and lither American sporty/muscle cars. But in 1964 I was still in awe of a Cadillac, and why not? It was then still a world class car in terms of its performance and handling, not just in world class luxury.
All this was driven home (quickly) by this road test of a ’64 Sedan DeVille, at high speeds and over rough mountain roads. Who would do that after 1964? And its performance, high-speed handling and braking were exemplary; it was mighty quick for a 5,050 lbs luxury sedan, as in a 0-60 time of 8.5 seconds. I can’t find a faster time for any classic Cadillac, even with the big 472 cubic inch engine that arrived in 1968.
No wonder this was peak Cadillac for me; it wasn’t just my youthful imagination or innocence.
Cadillac was on a roll in the ’60s, outselling Lincoln and Imperial combined by five to one. And it earned it, not just by virtue of its fins. Although some of the European cars excelled in certain aspects, no one could equal the Cadillac on a dollar-for-dollar basis. And realistically, none of the Europeans had anywhere near the performance, comfort and convenience features all in one well-balanced package.
This was brought home in Car and Driver’s classic “Six Luxury Cars” comparison from 1965, where only the three times more expensive hand-built Mercedes 600 beat the Cadillac. It really still was the standard of the luxury car field.
The tested Sedan DeVille was loaded with just about every available accessory and convenience feature, things we mostly take for granted now, although good luck finding a car with the quality of materials in the Cadillac. Real genuine cowskin leather, not some thin veneer glued to a backing fabric. The automatic climate control was particularly appreciated, and highly appropriate for a luxury car. That component alone was heads and shoulders above what any import could offer in that area.
Fully loaded, the tester weighed in at a hefty 5,050 lbs; the base weight would have been 4,575 lbs. And yet it scooted right along “if there’s ever been anything this big that’ll move this fast, we haven’t heard of it“. The ’64 was the beneficiary of the new 429 cubic inch version of Cadillac’s famous V8, packing 340 hp and a mighty 480 ft.lbs. of torque. That 480 ft.lbs. was the equal of what the best big Super/Stock engines of the day were making, which explains its excellent acceleration.
Multiplying all that torque was the brand-new Turbo Hydra-Matic 400 transmission, which of course had a torque converter and three speeds instead of the fluid coupling of the previous 4-speed Hydra-Matic. A detail I had forgotten: the old Hydramatic was still standard on the lowly series 62 as well as the series 75 sedan/limo. The THM-400 was as good (or better) than the lauded Chrysler TorqueFlite.
As to me calling it “the fastest classic Cadillac”, that’s based on my searches for 0-60 times of other Cadillacs from this era. I had long assumed that the ’68 (or ’69) would be quicker, given its new 472 cubic inch V8, but to the extent that I could find old reviews or stats gleaned from them, the best one I found was a ’68 Eldorado with a 8.6 second time. I found a ’68 Coupe DeVille with a 9.1 time, and a ’69 with a 9.4 time (in a recent comparison review we posted here), and Consumer Reports got only a 10.0 second time from the ’68 they tested. This ’64’s 0-60 of 8.5 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 16.8 @85 mph is exceptional and the best I could find.
Obviously there is going to be a range of times based on variations of engine build, the conditions of the testing site and of course the driving technique. But for what it’s worth, this ’64 appears to be a worthy recipient of the title, especially given how heavily laden it was.
The Cadillac was taken on an extended round trip Phoenix from LA, by way of Las Vegas, and included fast highway running as well as over mountain roads. “Considering the sheer size and bulk of the Cadillac, handling characteristics proved outstanding...the brakes held up very well during the hard use they go in the mountains…even survived two maximum stops from 115 mph before fading completely“. Given that some of the other tested cars of this era couldn’t even complete one hard stop from 80 without fade, that’s saying something.
“On the straight stretches in Nevada (where there’s no speed limit) we rolled along at 110 without any concern. The big Cad is extremely stable at these high speeds.”
The automatic climate control got gobs of praise, not surprisingly. Set it once, and forget about it; summer or winter.
Interior room was of course very adequate, even for six. The perforated leather seats enhanced the comfort, as did the six way power seat and adjustable steering wheel.
As to its quality and fit and finish, it was fully up to the standards that Cadillac had firmly established.
Related CC reading:
Vintage Car Life Road Test: 1961 Cadillac Coupe DeVille – Still “The Standard Of The World”?
Wow, I’ve never lusted after a Cadillac but you’ve sold me here – the design of the featured car is stunning in it’s simplicity and finesse – my previous favorite had been the ’65 Chrysler sedans but this predates it and as the original is much more well done – I simply am not enough of a GM fan to have pinpointed “peak Cadillac” and tend to think of the horrid late 60’s versions as representative of the entire decade.
The tone of the review left me jaw-dropped; there are just pure, appreciative descriptions and praise of fine engineering and craftsmanship without snark or wittiness… similar to the (Road Test?) reviews of early Toyota cars I’ve read at CC. For the first time I feel quite sad and sorry with regards to how much Cadillac would stumble and fall in the subsequent years and decades.
+1. I’ve always considered 1963 to be the single peak GM year (Corvette and Riveria) but I should probably be more generous and say it was really the two year 63-64 period and include this car (and the GTO while I’m at it).
The THM400 was required for peak GM luxury. Cadillac (and the Riviera that should have been a Cadillac) needed no excuses with that.
I’ve always considered the 1965-1969 years of GM to be the best design years, especially for their luxury brands, the Olds 98, Buick Electra and all Cadillac models of that time span. I’ve just begun to appreciate the 1961-1964 Cadillac models. The Fleetwood of those years and the latter 1960s were always my favorites, but the Lincoln Continental from that same decade was my all time favorite for that era.
Amazing and beautuful. The best and setting the standards even decades later.
1964 was the first year for Cadillac’s Comfort Control, the world’s first automotive ATC (although there were automatic heaters that predated it). MT’s explanation does not do it justice – I gave it a thorough write-up here a few years back. It is both highly complex and at the same time very simple.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cold-comfort/cold-comfort-the-history-of-automatic-climate-control/
Stylistically the 1964 Cadillac is a bit of a mixed bag to me. The squared-off greenhouse (lifted straight from the Lincoln Continental) seems to be too small for the body, and doesn’t really work with the leftover trinkets of 1950s design like the vestigal fins, rounded flanks, and heavy front end with high headlights. The redesigned 1965 Cadillac is actually a much more cohesive design, while The Riviera was the true styling champ from GM in 1964.
I have a lot of admiration for the 1961-1964 Cadillac. These were still around when I was very young, and exuded a quality that obvoulsly made them the “Standard of the World” in many eyes.
In 2023, I’m sort of amazed that the 1964 Cadillac could dominate its rivals the way it did. The Lincoln and the Imperial were much more contemporary, and well removed from the fin era.
Personally, the 1962 version works best for me. The body sculpting, especially the skeg fin, give it the early ’60s space age look the industry was looking for.
The 1964 was positively retrograde, with a heavy return to 1959 front end styling cues, and flat flanks that were more in character with the ’59 as well.
My pick for best interpretation of this era of Cadillac…..
I’ve been lapping up the vintage road tests of luxury cars you’ve been running recently.
This is very positive about the Cadillac and it sounds like an honest car, big, fast and luxurious. I’ve never been and never will be in the market for a car like this, but it seems a better expression of luxury and comfort than the big 4wds that are the favourite status cars where I live.
Sounds like the tyres took some punishment on this test, tyres are an area where technology has moved on in 60 years.
Great reflection! I like this year from the hood back. It always seemed to me that the front end and the rest of the car were from different stylists; it’s overwrought compared to the elegance of the rest of the car. It would have been interesting to see what Cadillac came up with in ’65 &’66 if they hadn’t “Pontiac-ed” their front lights…
I didn’t realize these were the perfect mix of power and handling (as it was back then). The article is highly complimentary regarding such. I’m also surprised Cadillac outsold the other 2 by that much of a margin; wasn’t the Lincoln considered it’s equal?
The reviewers rightly praise the Caddy’s A/C. GM’s A/C (at least until recent years) was mighty powerful, chilling the interior in 100 degree heat in a few minutes. The Comfortron option was technologically advanced and worked flawlessly. Chrysler and Ford had pretty good systems as well. Imports were slow to catch up. Mercedes offered what was basically a hang on unit into the seventies.
From my own experience and in talking to others, the A/C in todays vehicles doesn’t seem as cold as those from 50 years ago. It’s adequate, but that’s about it. I know today’s units are more environmentally friendly and sap less power from the engine, but why can’t it be frigid cold?
I believe the difference in effectiveness of A/C systems is due to the phasing out of highly efficient R12 Freon gas and its replacement with R134a, which is more environmentally-friendly but nowhere near as efficient.
Freon is still used for commercial applications such as apartment buildings, but was banned from automotive use in 1995.
My aunt had a 64 Sedan de Ville. To this day I still think it was the nicest car that I have ever been in. I loved the styling. The ride was cloud like. The seats were supremely comfortable. The quality was top notch. The air conditioning was absolutely polar. There was just an aura about that car that let you know, this is as good as it gets. Nothing on the market today is comparable.
The real concept of genuine luxury, reasonably fast, comfortable, excellent materials, well assembled.
Somehow, 2.3 tons, an old-school auto (by today-ish standards) and 300 real hp gives performance like this? The original ringer, surely. Just doesn’t add up.
There’s no doubt, ringer or no, the acceleration, the aircon, the quietness and (in a fairly specific way) the ride was as good as ’64 got. But the rest is a bit questionable. A 43 foot turning circle? 6.6 ft width (and a track 18 inches smaller) and nearly 19 ft length? Miserable 12 inch drum brakes all round? Low-sittin’ dood in that back seat showing not the comfortablest sitting manner (longer, lower, etc)?
This gorgeous, but pointlessly-outsized old barge is without question the standard of the world in many ways, but this review is otherwise jingoism personified. Perhaps Caddy’s mantra should have been the Standard of A World – but not necessarily “The”.
There may be variation on this mileage, of course.
“Ringers” were something Pontiac came up with starting in 1964, with the GTO. Before then it did not exist. This car’s acceleration numbers are in line with its predecessors; the ’61 with a smaller 390 V8 and the old Hydramatic did 0-60 in 9.5. With 480 ft.lbs. of torque, and a massively wide torque band, this engine did not need more gears unlike a peaky small modern engine.
“jingoism personified”? Really? What European car could come close to matching it for all-round performance and luxury at anywhere near its price? A MBZ 220SE with a high-winding little six and jerky 4-speed automatic, add-on under dash a/c, no power accessories, and…drum brakes? Yes, as the article clearly pointed out, it (and a few other European cars) had certain individual advantages, but simply were no match all-round.
In Europe in 1964, a Cadillac was still held in extremely high esteem, especially in countries like Switzerland, Sweden, the Netherlands and others where (German, French and British) automotive jingoism didn’t exist.
I don’t remember my first visit to Belgium, for the Brussels World’s Fair, but I was only a year old. But I remember a visit in the mid 60s when there were lots of American cars.
Automotive jingoism in the 50s and 60s was in a way understandable in the car producing nations – Italy, Germany, France and Britain. A mixture of nationalism, parochialism, import duties and herd mentality. Only Sweden seemed to avoid it.
Don’t rule out ignorance as well, you could still find British people who think Ford is a British car maker, even though they were always American and haven’t made cars here for over 15 years. Vauxhall, a GM subsidiary for about 100 years and now Stellantis was recently advertising itself as ‘A British Brand’ (they don’t make cars here either but do still assemble vans)
These days British buyers seem in thrall to German brand names and the cars assembled here are mostly Nissan and Toyota.
A 50s or 60s Cadillac would have been very rare here and held in awe and would still turn heads now.
Hummel, ignorance is always a thing – I didn’t know Vauxhall no longer made cars in the UK (despite it being logical, especially since Stellantis) and am even a bit shocked Ford doesn’t and hasn’t for as long as you say!
Paul, I meant ringer in the sense of very carefully prepared, maybe a bit of extra ignition advance, etc, not the GTO-type outright cheat.
It’s jingoistic to me – or perhaps a better term might have been ‘inward-looking’ or ‘blinkered’ – not to mention the hugely wasteful dimensions and dynamic roly-polyness, not to mention the unjustifiably benign attitude to brakes that were far from the standard of the world (as the test below makes clear). Anyway, you know what I meant – why, twas you yourself who gave us the ’65 Caddy that really was closer to the best it could have been (but never was) years ago!
However, in fairness to what you’ve said, the test below from the UK Autocar in ’64 also gives the whole shebang high praise (albeit with notably slower time to 60 mph), though I will add the caveat that their tests from the period were always rather tepid and overly-kind even when a car’s faults were glaring.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/13983203209/in/photostream/
I have long been a road test collector and had a good memory for stats. Paul is right on the money saying the ’64 is the quickest “classic” Cadillac. I doubt that this car received anything beyond a precise tune. The new 429 engine along with the TH400, 3.21 gears and the lighter ’64 body (in comparison to the 1965 and newer cars) made for great performance. Keep in mind during these days of gross horsepower, many other manufacturers were inflating their numbers, hence why some cars with big numbers didn’t perform as well one would think. Car Life used to calculate horsepower based on actual performance, and many cars of this era were very overrated. Cadillac didn’t need to have big horsepower numbers to make sales, and I wouldn’t be surprised if their ratings were not on the conservative side.
On the “miserable” 12″ drums, they were certainly above average for brakes of this era. 12″ drums are quite large and have good stopping power, and as this test shows, were more than strong enough for a car of this era. They obviously didn’t have the fade resistance of disc brakes, but compared to most of the vehicles of this era, these brakes were above average. FWIW, GM engineers of this time, in particular those at Cadillac and Buick, preferred drum brakes because they were considered smoother than disc brakes. This is why Buick investing in improving their drum brake technology with their rather large aluminum drums of this era.
Vince, years ago I drove the very Mercedes 220SE Paul refers to, and those 4-wheel assisted drums were memorably good, so I’ve no doubt Caddy’s 12-inchers were very fine, insofar as their tech limits allowed. (And you’re right, 12-inh drums in ’64 were simply huge. My ‘miserable’ complaint is different).
But I do refer to the UK test I linked above, and repeat that even THEY found the brakes a bit minimal.
My point is that no matter what GM engineers thought, it’s just one those cases where the available new tech had taken a quantum leap – and quite some years before ’64 at that – and to be faffing about with the old tech was not just inward-looking but far short of the being the world’s best.
Justy,
I should clarify, I am not trying to argue that the Cadillac brakes were the best, or couldn’t be better, just that they were better than average for the times. Perhaps, this is more true in the bubble of the North American car market rather than the international market. To quote the Autocar magazine, they said:
“If the US manufacturers were faced with our road conditions, coupled with the general freedom from speed limits outside built up areas, no doubt they would provide their cars with brakes to suit. As it is, these are still the weakest feature and the Cadillac can be acknowledged only as better than most of its compatriots in this respect. One quick stop from maximum speed stretches their capacity to the limit, and fast driving over give-and-take roads can fade them out quickly until one learns to use them as little as possible, holding them ready to meet any sudden emergency.”
The MT test reports that for the driving conditions they faced, the brakes were decent. However, they still faced some brake fade issues, so just imagine how bad the brakes would have to be for them to be critical. To quote them:
“The brakes held up very well during the hard use they got in the mountains. There was one stretch where we came down from 7900 feet to sea level – they did fade noticeably then, but we just stood on them harder and they did what we asked of them. During out test stops at Riverside, they behaved well – even survived two maximum stops from 115 mph before fading completely. The cast-iron drums are finned and cool quickly.”
FWIW, Car Life reported a less than impressive brake experience with the ’64 Cadillac it tested. They said
“With the new power train, Cadillac engineers might turn their attention to the brakes. The 377 sq. in. of swept lining area seem to be none to generous, since even in our relatively light test car they faded completely during our all-on stops from 80 mph.”
I think it’s fair to say for the driving conditions the typical Cadillac owner puts their car through, the brakes were good. This is more true when you consider that Oldsmobile installed the tiny 9.5″ drum brakes on the fullsize Oldsmobile Jetstar 88 in 1964. I don’t agree with the GM engineering thoughts of the time, as I do think they had the know-how to engineer a good disc brake. Lincoln, Thunderbird and Corvette all had them by 1965, Cadillac could have too. However, I think the engineers put too much emphasis on the smooth braking at the expense of performance, much like the trap Ford fell into with their focus on smooth rides at the expense of handling. Was Cadillac the world’s best in 1964? It’s debatable, but I tend to agree with Paul’s assessment. I think that even though the Cadillac did not have cutting edge brakes, the totality of the luxury car experience a Cadillac provided in 1964 was probably among the best in the world.
Working at a Ford garage, I never much appreciated how good these early 60s Cadillacs really were. Our town was too small to host a Cadillac dealer, so people who bought these had to travel to a distant larger town.
Routine service was usually done by the Buick-Olds dealer down the street, but we had a few brought in by owners who had a Ford product for a 2nd car. These were already 4 years old when I started working in the garage. I recall one ’64 in detail as it was the local undertakers hearse. He also had a black Mercury sedan, so we serviced both cars.
The undertaker had a teenage son who would sometimes slip out with the hearse on a Friday or Saturday night. I didn’t hang around with him, but others who did said he probably knew more about the performance limitations of the Caddy than the guys who tested them. As I recall, the hearse still had the old Hydramatic so it probably didn’t match the performance of this model, but it was evidently still quite a capable car.
In 1964, you may not have been able to find a better American car. In my opinion, that all changed in 1965. I’d consider a well equipped 1965 Chevy Caprice every bit the automotive equal of the Cadillac. The Caprice followed the Ford LTD in democratizing luxury auto features, but probably appealed more to GM loyalists that just couldn’t picture themselves in a Ford product.
In 1967, the president of one of the local cheese producers traded his 1966 Cadillac for a beautiful gold 1967 Caprice. The owner of the local Hotpoint appliance store soon followed by trading his 1965 Buick Electra for a blue 1967 Caprice.
Cadillacs, Buicks and other more premium brands remained popular for quite a few more years. Once the automotive value that had held Cadillac above lesser makes disappeared, the switch was on and the trend would only accelerate.
Good point about the LTD and Caprice crowding out the upper-end brands such as Cadillac and Lincoln. The problem was as the cheap brands got better, the expensive brands never upped their game with V-12s, fuel injection, pneumatic suspension, independent rear suspension, OD automatics, 4 wheel disc brakes, etc. that would have giving them some legitimate bragging rights over a nicely equipped LTD or Caprice. Instead they went the opposite direction by replacing real wood and real stainless steel trim with plastic versions of each and shoddier construction generally, and then milked the brand heritage and unneeded extra inches of length to maintain “status” distinctions with the cheaper brands in the portfolio.
The fact that stood out most for me was that 35% of 1963/4 Cadillacs were ordered *without* air conditioning! There is nothing luxurious about sweating.
It depends on where you summer.
I remember visiting Grandma’s Cadillac dealer in NC before she got her ’72 (the seat backs were too high on her ’70). The showroom had a Coupe de Ville without A/C, which must have been a hard sell. They were bought out a year or two later and moved to the new side of town.
It is probably safe to assume most of those cars were delivered above the 40th parallel. In 1964, many of those owners were likely without AC in their homes, even in the tonier neighborhoods.
In August, I stayed in a condo VRBO in Breckenridge, CO to attend a wedding. NO AC! It was quite stuffy the first evening, but we got the hang of managing windows, fans, and shades to keep comfortable.
My experience with my 1965 Riviera impressed me with how its foot vents, swivel door vents and four power windows could be managed to produce a pleasant, relatively draft free ventilation. Of course, its AC was very welcome when the temp was 90 plus and humid.
Now, what perplexes me is the guy that would buy a Cadillac in the deep south without AC, when he could have bought an Impala with AC and kept some serious change in his pocket. Tailfins and power windows aren’t that prestigious if you and your passengers are melting.
Well factory A/C didn’t crack the 50% take rate until 1969 for U.S. cars, so a 65% take rate for Cadillac back in 1963 seems about right. By the end of the ‘70’s A/C was basically ubiquitous. A/C was like a $500 option in the fifties, something like a 20% premium in the price of a car. Once the price came down and systems got better, everyone wanted it. Even my skinflint uncle, who ordered factory A/C in his 1968 Chevy Belair. Of course he still didn’t go for whitewalls, wheel covers or any creature comforts other than Powerglide. It did have tinted glass and a V-8, but Chevy may have required those options with A/C at the time.
One anecdote – some elderly relatives in a small town in northwest Ohio came into some money in 1963 and bought a new 1963 Cadillac. They decided on one without air conditioning. By 1967 they decided they had made a mistake on the a/c issue and traded the 63 on a 67 Calais. It had crank windows, but it had air. They chose one painted an almost identical color of gold because they didn’t want to flaunt that they were buying their second new Cadillac in three years – I can’t imagine that would have fooled most people, but OK.
By the end of the ‘70’s A/C was basically ubiquitous.
As Ralph says above, it depends on where you summer. Up in Canada, even by the late 1970s cars without A/C were still relatively common in my part of Ontario. You’d expect it in a Cadillac by that time, but many others didn’t have A/C. We owned numerous cars from the late 1970s in our family, and almost none had A/C. Even our two late 70s Olds Delta 88s were not equipped with A/C. My parents also owned a ’84 Pontiac Parisienne with no A/C, albeit, it was a stripper with almost zero options. The only car from our family from this era that I recall having A/C was my uncles ’79 Pontiac Catalina. My dad’s ’79 F-150 also had A/C but it was originally a US market truck imported into Canada. The A/C didn’t work when he owned it and rather than fix it he removed the compressor belt to save gas – I am sure that made a big difference on that 460 equipped truck! Today, at old car shows, I can usually tell which cars were original to the Canadian market by the lack of A/C.
My age is one that kind of keeps me from falling in love with any cars older that me (1967) and yet I didn’t really care about cars till around 10 years of age, thus my favorite years are the 1977 to 1999’s. But when it comes to Cadillac’s, I love them all. Not a fan of the huge fins from the late 50’s and early 60’s. This 64 is about when I began to like them, but if picking a Caddy from the 60’s, it would certainly be a 1965 or 66. I just love those long straight lines and refined styling.
Keep the old reviews coming! Really enjoy reading them.
my favorite years are the 1977 to 1999’s
Poor you!
I’m just old enough to know that mid 70s cars were crap at the time, even before I could legally drive.
I cannot quibble one whit about the reports of this car’s capabilities. As a long-ago owner of a 63 Fleetwood, I still remember how good that car was, even at advanced state of age and wear. You could tell it was heavy, but it would scoot when you kicked the gas, stop straight when you hit the brakes, and go where you pointed it without any fuss. That car ruined me for later Cadillacs.
I have long straddled a fence on the 1963 vs. the 64. I like the styling better on the 63, and also appreciate that it was the last chance at the by-then archaic 4 speed HM (I had not been aware that it had carried onto some models in 64). The 63 was also reputed to get significantly better fuel mileage.
But the 64 got the fabulous THM and the bigger 429, which was an excellent performer, and so was a better “modern” car than that of the prior year. I guess my 63 vs. 64 dilemma is hard to lose either way you go.
The performance of the 1964 Cadillac should not come as too much of a surprise, as the new 429 V8 & Hydramatic 400 transmission were fine updates to the 1964s. The 1965s carried over the 1964 drive-train but were heavier cars. What can I say? The larger the car, the greater the status, or so the thinking was.
It is funny to see the parallels with the Musclecar offerings and how, despite climbing power, for the most part really didn’t run faster than the older offerings. A real eye-opener is a solid axle fuellie Corvette of the late 50s / early 60s, that despite skinny tires could click off speeds near 100 mph through the traps. Despite more horsepower, ten years later musclecars really couldn’t better it except for specialized drag cars that now sell at auctions for $250,000.
The ’64 was a facelift of the ’63, notable for its more v- shaped tail light bezels in back, and v- shaped grille up front. What is noteworthy here is that the horizontal bar across the middle is painted, making the grille less regal some would say. Definitely not traditional Cadillac, but a unique touch that sets the ’64 apart from the ’63 and makes it instantly recognizable.
The ’64 Eldorado (convertible) didn’t have fender skirts–too bad that didn’t spread to the others, as it lightens the look. I prefer the large front turn signals and demure fins on the ’64, probably because Grandma had a ’64 Series 62 4 window when I was little. The ’65-6 slab sides were a let down, but not as big a one as the rounded ’71.
JP, I’ll just take one of each, one for weekdays and one for weekends lol. I am a fan of both. But seriously, I have for many years felt that all brands put out their best looking cars in 1964. This is just my personal taste but nonetheless, manufacturers certainly held to a standard of excellence while yet displaying their brand individuality which we sadly have not seen since.
Great article, Paul, on a great American land yacht! This is when GM owned the luxury car market, and you are absolutely right that nothing in the world could compare dollar for dollar. It’s unfortunate though, that Detroit could not figure out how to build the best small cars in the world, dollar for dollar; which would be in demand in the following decades.
I feel like the front-end styling of the 1964 Cadillac is almost the harbinger of the current GMC pickups. It was strangely unharmonious and homely for the era. That being said, this was when American cars were the best cars. Everything would start to turn with the introduction of the Mustang, which relieved Detroit of the obligation to care about substance.
In their July 1964 issue, Car Life tested a similar 1964 Sedan de Ville — I don’t THINK it’s the same car (the as-equipped price is different and the plates are HGR 024 rather than HGR 022). In any case, their performance figures were very similar: 0–30 in 3.4 seconds, 0–60 in 8.5 seconds, the standing quarter in 16.4 seconds @ 86 mph. They also recorded 0–70 in 11 seconds flat and 0–100 in 23.5, which is impressive for a big luxury sedan in 1964. (They listed top speed as 121 mph @ 4,600 rpm, which I’m confident is a calculated rather than observed figure.)
One point of note in the performance of both cars is the axle ratio: 3.21 with air. That, combined with Turbo Hydra-Matic, gave a lot more snap than the standard 2.94 ratio on non-AC cars. Car Life said, “The greater torque of the engine combined with the effect of the transmission’s torque multiplication launched the Cadillac off the line in truly impressive fashion, particularly when compared with earlier models and present competition.”
I was 21 years old when I bought my ’64 Cadillac convertible. The car was around ten years old, it still ran fine, but cars from this era didn’t last near as long as modern cars. The Caddy replaced a ’66 V8/four speed Mustang that I was never too excited about.
I had always liked Cadillacs, ever since I was a little kid, and couldn’t wait to get one of my own. An additional benefit was that they were great performers. While many people were still driving older big American cars with sixes or little V8s, a ten year old Cadillac was quite a powerhouse. A lot of performance for the money. I rode big motorcycles at the time, and I was used to performance. American Road Burners at their best.
When it comes to performance results in magazine tests I pay attention to quarter mile times and speed and the weight of car. Given the weight of the Cadillac, the time and speed achieved are outstanding which makes me suspicious.
I posit a possible explanation for the Cadillac’s above norm performance by recalling an article in the November 1968 issue of Motor Trend. In the article, MT obtained a fully loaded ’68 T-Bird with the new 429 equipped with a 3.50 to one axle ratio that weighed in at 4860 lbs. With standard tune, the ‘Bird ran 16.38 seconds @ 85.6 mph in the quarter-mile. About the same as the Cadillac.
Then they proceeded with the following. A 10°, dual-point distributor advance plate (COAF 12152A, plate; FDS12171, dual points; 17RA12300, condenser) was bolted in. Total advance was 38° with a rate of 1° @ 500 rpm, 3.0° @ 1000 rpm, 5.5° @ 1500 rpm, 10° @ 2000 rpm. Then In the carburetor (C8SZ9510A), two coils were removed from the secondary vacuum diaphragm (P-valve) and the secondary air bleeds were blocked. These modifications improved elapsed time to 15.81 seconds and bumped speed to 88 mph.
Moving on, engine checks revealed that the installed valve spring height was off a bit so it was re-established at 1.81-inch for the intakes and exhausts. This work was topped with a good valve job with time and speed improving to 15.50-90.30 respectively. Finally a reworking of the transmission accumulator valve body by B&M Automotive to firm up shifts was good for 15.38 seconds @ 91 mph.
They summed up the performance improvements by stating: “If you read our ’68 Supercar story (Dec. ’67) then you know that a Thunderbird running this WELL (my emphasis) is very little slower than a standard GTO (15.3 seconds vs. 15.1)” and furthermore “the most surprising aspect of the whole project was that the ‘Bird lost little of its luxury feel”.
Who knows what if any extra attention this Cadillac was given.
You forgot the “small” Calais! A ’68 2 door only needs 7.7 seconds.
According to who? I saw that same number from a Google search; it was a guy who claimed his ’68 Calais did it. But that’s not credible, as it appears there were some modifications and the testing regime is unknown. I’m talking about major magazine tests from back then. The Calais weighed only a very small amount less than the DeVille, and its 0-60 times were not faster than the ’64’s.
The 70 Eldorado specs speak for themselves 0 to 60 in 7 seconds 400 hp 550 lbs of torque 501 cubic inches,