For decades a Cadillac was something of a gold standard in the automotive realm, going right back to its very beginning. It could be counted on to be very well made and engineered, it was highly desirable due to its styling and image, and it had an exceptionally high resale value. And of course it was relatively expensive.
I was curious as to how the price of a Cadillac changed over the decades, so I used a CPI inflation calculator to compare the adjusted prices of Coupe DeVilles from the first year (1949) to the last (1993). Somewhat oddly, as Cadillac’s perceived value and sales headed downhill in the mid-late ’80s, their real prices were heading the opposite direction.
Having done that, I couldn’t resist also calculating their cost in price per pound.
I didn’t include every year so as to not make the chart too cluttered, and chose those years that represented a high or low point as well as the beginning and end of a trend line. There was a very clear upward trend at the beginning, from 1949 to 1957. It should be pointed out that CPI inflation adjustments don’t tell the whole story as Americans enjoyed a real (adjusted) increase in earnings throughout most of the ’50s and ’60s. It would seem that Cadillac was taking advantage of that during this period. Demand was quite high in those days, and Cadillac consistently had the lowest available inventory in the industry despite production increasing some 50% during these years. These were the years Cadillac consolidated its position at the top of the luxury brands and dispatched Packard altogether.
Having done that, things clearly took a different tack.
1958 was a watershed year for the whole industry, as buyers suddenly shunned large cars, especially the mid-priced brands. Cadillac was not hit as hard as the rest though, dropping only 20%. And by 1959, they had recouped that drop fully. But a more significant event is that starting in 1958, Cadillac prices started dropping, in real (adjusted) terms. Between 1958 and 1973, adjusted prices dropped by 26%. In terms of nominal prices (MSRP), Cadillac didn’t budge between 1958 and 1961, and in 1966 and 1967, prices actually dropped, despite there always being some inflation, which ticked up between 1958 and 1960, and then really started to pick up in 1966 with a strong spike in 1970-1971 due largely to the Vietnam war.
As a result of the combination of very modest price increases and increased inflation, in 1970 the Coupe DeVille first dropped below $50k since 1954, to $49,110.
Not surprisingly, annual sales grew strongly during these years, from 122k in 1958 to 305k in 1973, or a whopping 150% increase. Due to the continued effects of below-inflation price increases, the 1973 Coupe DeVille turned out to be the lowest cost of its kind ever, at $46,420 (in 2024 dollars). And for the first time ever, Coupe DeVille sales exceeded 100k units.
This reality was a decidedly mixed blessing, inasmuch as despite the continued growth in sales, Cadillac’s perceived value (as well as its actual cost) was dropping in the public’s perception. Low prices, high volumes and a palpable decrease in quality were the deadly ingredients that set up Cadillac for its eventual decline in the mid-late ’80s and on. But for the time being, Cadillac was undoubtedly mining huge profits. How more did it really cost to build a Cadillac compared to Caprice?
In addition to low prices, the years 1971-1973 were also the highwater mark for Americans’ hourly wages until just these past few years due to the pandemic effect. But prices for key things like housing, health care, education and others are vastly more expensive now in adjusted terms, so 1971-1973 was the culmination of America’s Exceptional Period and it made a new Cadillac affordable to a huge swath of the population, including a significant number of blue collar workers. I wrote about this in my very first CC ever, back in 2009. It was based on a memory of a ride I had in a new ’71 Coupe DeVille on my first long distance hitchhike in 1971. It was owned by the high school age driver’s father, a steel worker. The American dream was fulfilled for many, but it was not to last, for both consumers and Cadillac.
There was another problem, the relentless march upward of the low and mid-price brands. The title on this Caprice ad is disingenuous, as in reality a decently-equipped Caprice was only about 25% less than a DeVille. Who bought a Caprice without power steering, an automatic and a few other amenities?
This issue grew in the public’s awareness, and reviews like this comparison between a Caprice and deVille by Motor Trend broke an unspoken taboo about such comparisons. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. (Note: the tested Cadillac was “loaded” and thus the price spread was greater than some 25%.) It doesn’t need to be said that the truly affluent were starting to snap up more and more Mercedes at this time. Cadillac’s prestige image had really slid.
Maybe they got the message, as in 1974 Cadillac raised prices by a very hefty 25%. but due to the high inflation at the time that was an adjusted 15% increase. And of course the timing wasn’t exactly great as the ’74’s arrived just for the start of the first energy crisis; sales dropped some 20%.
Real adjusted prices bounced around a bit for a few years, and then dropped again in 1981, to $48,874. It’s hard to say what exactly the factors were, but 1980-1981 was of course another very difficult year due to the second energy crisis a spike in inflation and the resultant recession. Cadillac bounced back and had a very good year in 1985, but that would be the high-water mark for the brand.
The combination of poorly conceived and styled downsized 1985 DeVille (above) and Fleetwood and the disastrous 1986 Seville and Eldorado, iffy gas and diesel engines as well as the continuing strong growth of ever more upscale import brands resulted in a steady erosion.
Starting in 1982, Cadillac had embarked on significant annual price increases. By 1987 the Coupe DeVille crested the $60,000 (adjusted) mark, and it just kept on going. Was the strategy to just bilk their remaining Greatest Generation customers who were so loyal to the brand? Or was it an effort to elevate the perceived status of the brand? If it was the second, it was too little, too late.
The last Coupe Deville was available in 1993, and by that time its price had shot up to $75,034, 62% higher than the 1973. No wonder sales were shriveling; it obviously wasn’t a winning strategy. If they’d had the true equivalent of a Lexus LS400, that would have been a different ball game. The ’93 tried to look a bit longer by having buttock enhancement surgery (and a free wig), but those didn’t make it any more appealing on the supermarket shelf, especially priced at $21.32 per pound. No wonder only 3,519 of them found buyers.
As to the cost per pound for these cars, of course it’s silly and mostly irrelevant, although the cost of materials is a not insignificant factor. The 1973 gets the distinction of lowest price per pound ($9.43) as well as being one of the heaviest at 4,925 lbs thanks to its all-time lowest inflation adjusted price. The 1975 was the all-time heaviest at 5,049 lbs. The lightest was the heavily downsized 1985, at a mere 3,325 lbs. Of course it looked it too; a mere shadow of its former self. That didn’t go over so well, especially at $16.20 per pound.
The Deville series continued without the coupe through 2005, so as a postscript I’ve added this as a frame of reference. The 2005 ‘s adjusted price is $72,700, almost exactly the same as the 1993.
I was curious to see what a new Cadillac sedan costs now. The 2025 CT5 starts at $47,595, and Edmunds suggests that the popular V Series version should go for $56,684. It’s not exactly my cup of tea, but it does seem a significantly better buy (and car) than the 1993 Coupe DeVille, even accounting for the decades gone by. The CT5 should/could have been the latest in a long line of international-style Cadillac sedans, like the 1965 Seville I would have built had I been in charge back then as a 12-year old. But then they didn’t ask me, to their undoubted regret.
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic: 1972 Cadillac Coupe DeVille – The First Curbside Classic, Ten Years Later
Vintage Comparison Test: 1971 Cadillac DeVille versus 1971 Chevy Caprice – Rise of the Chevrollac
Curbside Classic: 1955 Cadillac Coupe DeVille – You’re The DeVille In Disguise, Oh Yes You Are
Curbside Classic: 1959 Cadillac Coupe DeVille – False Prophet Of A New Era
Curbside Classic: 1979 Cadillac Coupe DeVille – Many A Pensioner’s Reward
Curbside Classic: 1984 Cadillac Coupe de Ville – Nice Car; Shame About The Engine
Curbside Classic: 1988 Cadillac Coupe de Ville – How Not To Downsize A Luxury Car
Curbside Classic: 1991 Cadillac Coupe de Ville: Triple White Birthday Cake
A great Christmas gift to a FORMER Cadillac owner and aficionado. My love affair with Cadillac began as a kid salivating over a local banker’s 58 Fleetwood black Sixty Special. Having owned numerous previously owned upscale vehicles (including a 72 Caprice, which I bought because it DID offer a bit of Cadillac luxury at a lower price) the love affair ended with a 93 RWD Brougham. Quality of materials was down as well as premature rust though of rear wheel openings allowing moisture to get into the trunk and rear seats. But my previous Cadillac Brougham deElegance was still Standard of the WORLD, even without the Fleetwood name ( unfortunately given to the downsized RWD).. Now Cadillac is driven to selling bloated SUVS (glorified trucks masquerading as Luxury vehicles) at bloated prices. How the mighty have fallen! Since the 93, I’ve been Thinkin Lincoln. My current 2007 Signature Limited (75,000 miles) is the last gasp of traditional American Luxury sedans. Now Lincoln is no better than the rest. That being said, wishing all a Happy Holiday Season.
Before ’81, inflation pushed middle incomes into higher tax brackets formerly enjoyed only by the rich–but auto loan interest was still deductible. Cadillac really needed to move further upmarket sooner, since Chevrolet had to improve quality to compete with imports, and BOP would get squeezed out–as they were. Short-term thinking.
Are you sure the big ’74 price bump wasn’t for MY 75, the year A/C finally became standard? I remember price increases in the middle of model years back then, and then rebates when inventories piled up. I believe my dad got a 17% discount for paying cash for a ’73 Buick.
The 1974 and 1975 models experienced several substantial mid-year price increases. According to the Standard Catalog of American Cars, the Coupe de Ville started 1974 at $6,560 and rose to $7,867 during the model year. The 1975 model started at $8,600, rose to $8,613, and then rose to $9,029. NOT adjusting for inflation, that’s a $2,469 increase in the course of a year. (Obviously, it’s hard in these kinds of calculations to estimate actual transaction prices, but as you say, not everyone paid sticker by any means.)
It seems odd now that they raised the price so much during a severe recession and right after the first big gas price hike and shortages, that were punishing big car sales bigly. Their ’73 MY sales were over 300k, a record broken only a few years since. Should have raised the price a year earlier.
The one thing an examination of list prices misses is the effect of discounted actual transaction prices. It would not be surprising to find that the big hikes in list prices starting in the 80s were accompanied by ever increasing rebates and discounts. Were prices hiked so aggressively in an attempt to convince customers that Cadillac was still a top-tier brand? I suspect probably so. I would also expect that through most of the 70s, Cadillac weren’t discounted all that much compared with other cars. I suspect that changed in the 80s and has continued.
I wish actual transaction prices were more available. My suspicion is that it has been a long time since Cadillacs were lapped up anywhere close to sticker.
It would also be interesting to apply your analysis to other mong-running models to see if Cadillac is an aberration or if the brand reflects pricing more widely applied across the domestic industry.
Yes, I’m thinking of doing it for a Chevrolet; a sedan from whatever was the best selling trim level at any time.
I was thinking the same thing. I would try it myself but do not know how to do it. Maybe someone will pick up the ball and run with it on this.
I was hoping to see not just the adjusted price, but also the price from back then. But a nice presentation none the less.
1. Surprised that the early postwar Caddys were so relatively inexpensive.
2. Inflation-adjusted prices dropped during the ’60s, (along with Cadillac quality) now that the GM bean counters were fully in control.
3. Despite the hyperinflation of 1974-80, the “real” price of a Caddy stayed within the historical average.
4. The sharp rise after 1981 is probably the result of more sophisticated equipment added (like airbags, electronics, etc.) which is probably more expensive to produce than just selling slabs of molded steel.
A ’59 Chevy Biscayne (like mine), base price in 1959 dollars = 67¢/lb.
A ’59 Cadillac Series 62 = $1.05/lb.
67¢ a pound is pretty hard to beat!
Surprised that the early postwar Caddys were so relatively inexpensive.
“relatively” on from a much later perspective. As I pointed out in the article, American’s real income grew strongly in the ’50s and ’60s. Meaning that in the beginning of the ’50s, not many could actually afford one, and they were seen to be quite expensive. Inflation adjustment is not the same as purchasing power. If a Cadillac had really been affordable back then they would have sold a whole lot more of them.
To put the late ’40s prices in contemporary perspective, you have to be conscious of the enormous postwar inflation. In 1941, a Cadillac Series 62 Deluxe Coupe, which was probably the most comparable to the later Coupe de Ville in its position in the lineup, listed for $1,510 (about $33,800 in 2024 dollars), rising to $1,630 for 1942. In 1946, the Series 62 club coupe started at $2,556 ($44,300 in 2024 dollars), rising to $2,912 by 1948. If you want a direct model comparison, the 60 Special sedan rose from $2,195 in 1941 to $3,095 in 1946 and $3,797 in 1949.
If you want a more involved discussion of relative pricing rather than just CPI adjustment, MeasuringWorth has a calculator that will provide several types of estimates: https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ppowerus/
For 1949, they estimate that the $3,497 price of a 1949 Coupe de Ville would be the equivalent of the following amounts:
… $46,259.08 or $76,061.96 spent on a purchase today.
[The first figure is a CPI adjustment, the second is based on “Relative Value in Consumption,” defined as “measured in proportion to the amount of goods and services such as food, shelter, clothing, etc., that an average household would buy.”]
… $87,568.71 received as a compensation today
… $166,805.65 of wealth held [as a percentage of GDP] today.
Another useful metric for car purchases is how many weeks of average/median pay it takes to purchase a car. I just stumbled into this: “it took the average factory worker 32.8 weeks of work to buy a basic new 1949 car and 27.5 weeks in 1958.” (The Insolent Chariots 1958).
Fascinating analysis, and not at all what I’d expect. Inflation analysis is tricky, like you noted, and other things like transaction price (like JPC noted above), resale value, and the relative costs of other needs and wants all factor into it. But still, the trend here is indisputable, and absolutely fascinating. Thanks for pulling this together, and I’m curious to see other analyses like this too.
The 1975 model year was when the term “sticker shock” came to be widely used. Prices rose steeply across the board, and as has been pointed out, prices were raised significantly during both model years, not just at introduction. As I recall, in early 1974 the most basic cars listed for under $2,500; by summer 1975, base prices approaching $3,000 became the norm. This was also when the prices of low-end Japanese and European imports became higher than those of comparable domestic products. A factor for the latter was the declining value of the US dollar in comparison to foreign currencies.
One example from back then: My mother’s new 1973 Chevy Monte Carlo had a list price of about $3,500 which included a V8 engine, automatic transmission, and optional air conditioning. By contrast my 1975 VW Rabbit listed at just above $4,000, and that had a 4-cylinder engine, manual transmission, and of course no air conditioning. And spitballing in price per pound, the Monte was about 95¢/lb; the Rabbit was closer to $2/lb!
In about 1974, a leading newspaper published an article stating that a GM insider had disclosed that the actual production cost of a Cadillac was only 10% greater than a Chevrolet. I recall doing the numbers to try to confirm that and one indication was that steel at the time was about $125 a ton. Using estimates of other raw material costs it did seem plausible that it cost only $400 more to produce the Cadillac than the Chevrolet.
The retail price of the Cadillac was about 100% greater than the Chevrolet.
Yeah, I know that the CPI calculator can’t be a perfect measure, but this most interesting—I wonder whether I’d have guessed at the highs and lows? I look forward to more of same with different brands, models, etc.
And the “per pound” is an interesting measure as well. Whenever (early 1960s?) the Cadillac with the shortened trunk (easier for women to drive/park?) appeared, I wonder how price-per-pound figured in with the rest of the lineup?
FWIW, here’s Ralph Nader in July 1968 re ‘manufacturing the Cadillac doesn’t cost all that much more’ idea—I can’t vouch for it, or come up with others who discussed it publicly:
The short-tail Series 62 Town Sedan and Sedan de Ville Park Avenue were intended to be easier to park — I think they were a response to Cadillac owners complaining that the latest models were too long to fit in a standard garage. Since they cost the same as a regular sedan or Sedan de Ville and weighed only a little less, they were very slightly more expensive on a dollars-per-pound basis.
I assume Paul is using base MSRP and shipping weight, and the 1962 short-tail cars were $5,213 for 4,590 lb for the Series 62, $5,631 for 4,655 lb for the De Ville. Adjusted by CPI, that’s $54,822 ($11.94/lb) and $59,218 ($12.72/lb) respectively. The Coupe de Ville wasn’t offered in a bob-tailed version.
I wonder how much GM lost on each sale to pay for three years of extra tooling. Enough to put off development of a smaller Cadillac for a decade.
The 1962 DeVille was $5,213 the model 62 was $4956 only a few hundred dollars differents. But that difference was a lot of money in those days. I also now that a shortage of Steel didn’t help the 59 model year. The 1959 Cadillac and Buick Electra both were 225″ long. But I think they weighed less than their 1958 model. So using cost per lb could be misleading. But a interesting story.
The 1959 Coupe de Ville was 15 lb heavier in shipping weight from 1958 and $21 more expensive, so its price per pound was almost unchanged.
List price in 1962 for the cheapest Series 62 two-door hardtop was $5,025. The Coupe de Ville started at $5,385, an extra $360, although it came with power windows, a power seat, and part-leather upholstery. An extra 6 cents per pound.
The Cadillacs of yesteryear were cars that many/most young men aspired to own; they stood out amazingly.
These days, I find I am hard-pressed to identify individual brands due to a dispiriting sense of sameness across the industry.
Why did GM, et al, begin designing automobiles that people don’t want to buy? It seems to have begun in the early 80s.