A bob-tailed Cadillac? Strange but true: Between 1961 and 1963, Cadillac briefly offered short-deck versions of its four-door hardtop, aimed at owners who’d complained that the big cars were getting a little too big.
The 1959 Cadillac caused a minor backlash among Cadillac customers, due not to its styling, but to its size. In 1958, Cadillac overall length (discounting the big Series 75) ranged from 216.8 to 225.3 inches. For 1959, Cadillac consolidated all non-75 models at a single size: 225 inches on a 130-inch wheelbase, which carried over for 1960.
1960 Cadillac Sedan de Ville — 225 inches long on a 130-inch wheelbase / ClassicCars.com
Normally, Cadillac buyers were all for grandiosity, but now, some complained to their dealers that the latest models wouldn’t fit in a standard garage and were difficult to park in the city. Concerned, the Cadillac sales organization conducted a survey of Cadillac buyers in 17 major urban areas. Thirty percent of respondents said they would be interested in a smaller Cadillac model.
1961 Cadillac six-window Sedan de Ville — 222 inches long on a 129.5-inch wheelbase / ClassicCars.com
All 1961 Cadillacs were a bit shorter than before — by a whopping 3 inches overall — but the survey results seemed emphatic enough that Cadillac went a step further, adding a short-deck version of the six-window four-door hardtop. The first indication of this new model was in some 1961 Cadillac brochures, which picture a short-deck six-window hardtop sedan in the cheaper Series 62 line:
1961 brochure image of the abortive short-deck Sixty-Two Sedan / Old Car Manual Project Brochure Collection
Because the short-deck car was apparently an afterthought, it arrived as a mid-year introduction early in the 1961 calendar year. By that time, Cadillac had had second thoughts about how to position the short-deck model: The 1961 Cadillac Data Book now identified it as the Town Sedan, and said that it was “produced only in the de Ville series.” My guess is that Cadillac management didn’t want to give the impression that the short-deck car was somehow a lesser model, so it was priced the same as the long-deck Sedan de Ville models: $5,498. The only difference was that the Town Sedan’s tail was shortened by 7 inches, with a commensurate reduction in trunk space.
Short-deck 1961 Cadillac Town Sedan de Ville / Mecum Auctions
Long-deck 1961 Cadillac six-window Sedan de Ville / ClassicCars.com
The problem with marketing surveys is that what people say they want and what they actually buy are not necessarily the same thing, and customers confronted with an actual shortened Cadillac suddenly had reservations. Much the same was true of dealers, who were already a little uneasy about the long-deck model’s modest downsizing — a car like a new Cadillac was at least as much status symbol as transportation, and sacrificing even a minor point of bragging rights could be dicey. Also, the 1961 Cadillacs were already easier to park, thanks both to the reduction in overall length and a redesigned front suspension that cut the turning circle by about 3 feet, which was apparently enough for many buyers. Town Sedan production for 1961 totaled only 3,756 units, compared to 26,415 for the long-deck six-window Sedan de Ville.
The Town Sedan returned for 1962, but it was now demoted to the cheaper Series 62 line, just as Cadillac had initially suggested it would be in 1961.
1962 Cadillac Series 62 Town Sedan / Collector Car Ads
For 1962, the Series 62 Town Sedan was available only as a four-window four-door hardtop, listing for $5,213, the same as other four-door Series 62 models.
Short-deck 1962 Cadillac Series 62 Town Sedan / Collector Car Ads
Long-deck 1962 Cadillac Series 62 four-window sedan / Henri’s classics
So that garage-conscious De Ville customers wouldn’t feel left out, there was again a short-deck Sedan de Ville for 1962, now bearing the extremely posh-sounding name of Cadillac Park Avenue Sedan de Ville. This listed for $5,631, again the same as other Sedan de Ville body styles.
Short-deck 1962 Cadillac Park Avenue Sedan de Ville / Cadillacs for sale
Long-deck 1962 Cadillac four-window Sedan de Ville / FastLane Classic Cars
Production of the 1962 short-deck models was only 5,200, divided evenly between the Series 62 and De Ville versions. By all accounts, demand was much less than anticipated, but the round numbers make me think Cadillac went a step further and allocated only a limited number of short-deck cars on the production lines. In this era, Cadillac production was straining the limits of the existing facilities — the division was building about all the cars they could build without significant expansion. Cadillac general manager Harold G. Warner finally announced a major factory expansion in December 1962, but the new space wasn’t ready until mid-1964. In the meantime, it probably made sense to prioritize the more popular long-tail cars.
This didn’t stop the short-deck car from making one last appearance for 1963, once again limited to the De Ville series. A 1963 Park Avenue Sedan de Ville started at $5,633. Production totaled only 1,575 units, at which point Warner apparently decided enough was enough.
Short-deck 1963 Cadillac Park Avenue Sedan de Ville / Bring a Trailer
Long-deck 1963 Cadillac four-window Sedan de Ville / Pedigree Motorcars of the Palm Beaches
Recognizing a short-deck Cadillac in isolation isn’t always easy because these are still colossal cars by most any standards — overall length of the short-deck models is 215 inches! The principal giveaway is that the proportions of the tail don’t look right, making clear that the short-deck models were an afterthought in the design process.
Short-deck 1963 Cadillac Park Avenue Sedan de Ville / Bring a Trailer
You might assume that the short-deck models would be lighter and thus a little quicker than the long-deck versions, but the AMA shipping weights indicate a difference of only 15 to 20 lb. This might seem counterintuitive, but the body structure was basically unchanged, so the difference really just amounted to shortening certain sheet metal panels, which didn’t make much difference in total weight, just as a pair of jeans with a 38-inch inseam isn’t noticeably heavier than the same jeans in a 32 inseam.
Short-deck 1963 Cadillac Park Avenue Sedan de Ville / Bring a Trailer
The Town Sedan and Park Avenue couldn’t be regarded as commercial successes, but the investment involved in creating them was undoubtedly modest (which was also part of why they looked a bit awkward). However, while Cadillac probably didn’t lose much money on them, in the 1970s, their failure became another argument against either downsizing the standard Cadillac or adding a smaller companion model. “People kept saying, ‘We’ve got to have a small Cadillac,’ so we did it — and you couldn’t give those things away,” lamented Chuck Jordan, Cadillac design director from 1957 to 1962. In the early ’60s, anyway, not many people were interested in paying full price for 97 percent of the Standard of the World.
Related Reading
Curbside Classic – 1961 Cadillac Four Window Sedan deVille (by tbm3fan)
Vintage Car Life Road Test: 1961 Cadillac Coupe DeVille – Still “The Standard Of The World”? (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1962 Cadillac Series 62 Town Sedan – Don Draper’s Dream (by Laurence Jones)
Curbside Classic: 1962 Cadillac Series 62 Coupe – Coupe de la Creme (by J P Cavanaugh)
Curbside Classic: 1963 Cadillac Park Avenue – The Original Seville (by Dave Skinner)
COAL: 1963 Cadillac Sedan deVille — The Tale Of The Fin (by Chris Clark)
Interesting. The shorties do look wrong, even to my non-prestigious eyes. When I see the long version I think practical thoughts about driveways and parking lots, but when I see the short version I simply think “That’s not a true Cadillac!”
Graceful downsizing doesn’t necessarily impose low status. Cadillac had already proved the point with the original 60 Special, smaller than standard but more expensive.
We lived in a standard, cookie-cutter split level with a one-car garage. As a snow storm approached, Dad wanted to see if our 2 cars could fit in the garage, one behind the other.
He moved all the extraneous stuff from the end of the garage, and to our surprise, the 2 cars did fit. End-to-end, bumpers touching, with hardly an inch to spare:
The “family car” — 1963 Olds 98 4-dr. hardtop.
Dad’s “station car” — 1961 Austin 850 (Mini).
Dan F: Your story made me recall my parents first Cadillac. In 1976, my parents decided to treat themselves to their first Caddy. We lived on a farm and had a two car garage attached to the house. It was a side by side however. Our problem was the length of the car. The Chevy Caprice they had fit in with nearly a foot of space. The 1975 Cadillac Deville they purchased was done without thinking if it would fit in the garage! When they got home with it, I was beyond excited and lovingly watched as dad pulled it into the garage. That’s when it hit them. haha.
As mom guided him in, dad had to pull the Caddy up till the front bumper (the point if you will) touched the very 1970’s pressed wood paneling. They tried to close the garage door, but saw it was going to hit and stopped it. Dad ended up having to bump the front point of the bumper through the paneling about 2″ and then the garage door would shut. Barely!
Ive only seen one shorty it looked wrong, kinda rare here they were all private imports but I guess somebody just had to have it.
Great enjoyable read! Whether short or long deck, these 1961-64 ‘four window’ and in particular ‘six window’ Cadillac 4 door hardtops are simply stunning cars in my opinion.
Nothing more elegant than a 1961, 62, 63 or 64 black 6-window 4 door pillarless hardtop Cadillac Sedan Deville. So much nicer than the common 2 door versions.
I find them somewhat fascinating as I like oddball stuff. To my eyes, the ’63 looks best. It actually has a bit of long-hood/short-deck styling. Some full-size GM’s of that period look short-hood, long-deck to me, which I don’t think has aged very well.
Very Interesting and informative! A long time aficionado òf the GREAT AMERICAN LAND YACHT, I somehow missed these short deck Cadillacs. Strange how GM moved Series names from one division to another. Park Avenue would move to Buicks top models as Calais moved down from Cadillac to a mid size Olds. A firm believer that Too Much is NEVER enough, I find the short decks better balanced. The roof looks more befitting a Town Sedan (or Town Car 😉). Às to Cadillacs small cars, only the bustle back Sevilles had and appeal for me. The Cimarron was a disaster. The 80s downsized FWD Cadillacs were far from Cadillacs Standard of the WORLD image leaving only the RWD BROUGHAM to soldier on as a real Cadillac. Now Cadillac (like others) has moved its focus to bloated SUVS at bloated prices. How the mighty have fallen. That being said, with so many Peasant vehicles being revolting, I’m on to VERSAILLES, in my Town Car Signature Limited! Let them eat my dust 😤 🤣
I think it would have looked less odd on the coupes, which had freakishly long trunks in the 60s. Wonder why they didn’t get the bob.
I wonder how they managed to create the shortened fenders with those sweeping fins. It must have cost a ton to tool up separate dies for the shorter deck, only to produce a few thousand.
I like the 1963 Park Avenue Deville (the blue one) the best. However, I think if they would have reduced the “fins” in back just a little would have made it look better. Maybe lower the fins about an inch overall and have them slope downward as they went back to the tail lights.
I agree. The fins compromise the visual effect of shortening the overall length on a luxury car like the Cadillac. It would have looked even worse had fin shortening been done on a ’57-’60 Imperial with its forward angle at the rear.
The standard knock against the short-deck Cadillacs is that the proportions were off, but I find much of that comes from directly comparing them to the far more common long-deck versions. Trunk lids on full-size American cars seemed to reach record lengths in the first half of the 1960s; after that increasingly short rear deck prevailed, eventually leading to modern sedans with mail-slot trunk openings that look like they could be hatchbacks.
If I had never seen long-deck ’61-63 Cadillacs, I’m not sure I’d find anything wrong with the proportions of the short-deck models had I never seen a long-deck version. Those trunk lids are still huge by modern standards. (To my eyes, the short-deck styling works best on the 6-window ’61 model; fat C pillars and short decks don’t go together well for me).
That said, Cadillac clearly should have made a more substantive effort at a smaller car, shortening the distance between the front doors and the front wheels as well as the rear overhang. Or better yet, an entire car designed from the outset with mid-sized dimensions. In order for such a car not to be perceived as a “baby Cadillac” with less prestige, it would need to be offered only in higher-end models at higher prices, which is exactly what they did when they eventually released the Seville in mid-’75. I wonder if luxury imports like Mercedes and Jaguar would have been able to make as deep inroads had Cadillac had a good smaller car since the early ’60s. (note: the ’61 Continental was a full 15″ shorter than the ’58-’60 models with no loss of cachet and higher sales that increased each year well into the ’60s). Benzes, BMWs, and Jags would have sold anyway as some preferred their more sporting demeaner, but it’s clear some Americans buying luxury imports in the ’60s and early ’70s did so because American alternatives were just too huge.
How much trunk space was lost in the short-deck Caddys? I can’t find figures for both online.
Yes, it’s the dash-to-axle distance that unbalances the short-tail. Back in this era Buick, Olds and Pontiac all managed to field their cars in two sizes, but with two wheelbases.
Here’s a thought. What if Cadillac offered a B-body size with deVille roof and call it Calais (or something else) when Gm downsized all the big cars for 1977? Calais never sold the way Cadillac hoped it would, but you could have a Cadillac on the cheap without having to be in a lessor Buick. The ’77 Buick Park Avenue however would offer more content but not the Cadillac name. This would make for an interesting conversation. Not sure if Cadillac even considered carrying Calais in the downsized program.
The short deck model may have looked a bit “off” when it was new, but I think the design has aged better. To my eyes, the overhang of the long deck models makes them look like a parody of sheet metal excess. Make my dream vintage Caddy a ’62 shorty please.
Park Avenue was an appropriate name. If there’s any place where having a shorter car would be helpful, it’s New York City.
It was an interesting experiment, but I’m not surprised they weren’t popular. Not enough reduction in size to be worth the odd proportions. The regular ones (as well as many cars of the era) have maybe too much rear overhang. But when you lop off some, it looks funny.
. Choice of short-deck version would have been visually a good thing for many other american barge models of the time. Not to the point of making them “Gremlins” ( chop Hornet ) but a few centimeters less would have been visually beneficial .
I had forgotten (if I ever knew) that this style bounced around between the Series 62 and the DeVille.
My grandparents lived in the Philly Main Line suburbs. My mother recalled meeting one of my grandmother’s friends who explained matter-of-factly during the time period of these Cadillacs that she had bought a Rolls-Royce because it fit better in her older garage. I think these were seen as Cadillacs for those willing to compromise.
I don’t remember these short-deck Cadillacs from back in the day, but given their low sales numbers, that’s not surprising.
Interesting about the 215-inch length of the 1961 Town Sedans. The detached 2-car garage of our 1935 house when I was growing up had an interior length of 16 feet (216 inches); therefore a Town Sedan might have just barely fit! I remember that our 1967 Chevy Bel Air (213 inches long) was a tight squeeze.
We used to hang old tires off the metal window frames on the back wall of the garage — that way you could jam the front bumper of the car against a tire to make sure the garage door could be fully closed.
Some American cars of that era do look comically misproportioned with their long tails, but these Cadillacs seem to have defied shortening.
I think it’s due to the contouring of the Caddy’s body sides, the sweep of the upper and lower body creases narrowing toward the tail. On the shorties this sweep seems to tighten past the doors to meet the regular lights and bumper contours. On the other GM brands, but especially ’62-on Olds or Buick, you don’t have that sweep of lines converging toward the tail, just parallel lines that seem to stretch on and on, and could be chopped off without doing violence to the design.
I’m assuming they bobbed the tail as much as they could without hitting the chassis? Producing a short-tail chassis for such a small production run would have been pricey. But I guess Cadillac could have afforded it.