(first posted 9/21/2018) Yes, a Smart and a Cadillac posing together isn’t exactly original, but with a ’62 Fleetwood 75? Probably not, so we’re going to add to the cyber collection of the genre, thanks to Nicky D, who shot these two in Fairfax. And just how much longer is the Fleetwood, as in multiples? Two and a half times as long? Three times? More? Looks can be deceiving.
2.28 times as long is the right answer. The Smart is 106.1″ long, and the Caddy spans 242.3″.
But then the Smart only seats two, and the Fleetwood up to seven with the jump seats up; eight if a third rider cozies up to the chauffeur. And then there’s the trunk, and the fins.
When it comes to engine size, the Cadillac really trumps the Smart. Although it only has a fairly modest 390 cubic inch V8, that’s still six times as big as the Smart’s one liter three-pot mill. It probably slurps about six times as much gas. Ok, that’s probably exaggerating. More like three and a half to four times as much. But on a per-person basis, if the Fleetwood is carrying a full load (not likely), the difference is slight, to none.
And how about weight? The 75 is 3.23 times as heavy (5500lbs vs. 1700). Any other vital stats we should be comparing?
I wonder if the Caddy is a limo or an 8-passenger sedan without divider.
The color makes me think it’s the latter, since weren’t most Series 75 divided limos’ original customers either corporate VIP fleets, the diplomatic service and the funeral trade?
From the paint on the hubcabs, it looks like it was originally black.
“Any other vital stats we should be comparing?”
Like maybe how I would be 1,000 times more likely to choose the Cadillac than the Smart? 🙂
Instead of crashing a ’59 Chevy into an ’09 Malibu, maybe the IIHS should smash a Fleetwood 75 into a Smart and see what happens.
(Actually, no they shouldn’t–it’s bad enough those bureaucratic cretins destroyed one irreplaceable, beautiful classic car!)
You might be surprised.
So basically the Smart mostly retains its shape in a high speed collision, therefore all the energy transfers to the occupants, super. Or gets flung into the air like a ping pong ball(imagine if that accident plays out on a bridge!). I’ll take my chances in the big elderly Caddy in both scenarios
Wow, reality just can’t win with you guys. First you make snide remarks about how small and unsafe the Smart is and that it would be flattened. Then, when it is shown to be solidly built and the passenger compartment provides good crush resistance, you complain that that is bad. Idiots.
Well;
I remember them saying in a full frontal impact the Smart car was remarkably good, Lord help you in side impacts .
_None_ of the many Smart cars Ive seen in junkyard were crashed .
-Nate
Nobody would be able to survive a sudden stop at that speed, anyhow. Damaged internal organs, due to excessive G-forces, would be the result
In which case, you’ll only need to get out of the non-collapsable steering column’s way
How about a Smart car vs. Mercedes C300?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dhe6TL15pJtw&ved=2ahUKEwizucyupM3dAhV2IDQIHQ0hB9gQtwIwAnoECAEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1en7Y_FIhPK0JcfBBW2wwf
Perhaps practicality.
And oddly, in my eyes, both fail, and both pass, for the same reason. Size.
The Smart works in one very specific environment. It was made for urban European use. City driving, short distances, single (or maybe dual) occupant. Made to use the least space so it could fit sideways into parking spaces. Everything else was a compromise to meet the requirements of small.
The Caddy works just the opposite. Made for American roads, city and highway. Longer commutes. Parking is of no concern. One driver and one or more passengers in the back. Built to impress and inspire awe in both passengers and onlookers alike. No real compromises made, other than sticking to some basic corporate design and some common parts.
Because of this, neither is really practical. The Smart is just too small for most people to have as their only car. You can’t haul a family, or a full load of groceries or luggage to and from the airport, or do anything that a slightly larger car can and will do, with no penalty in fuel economy and at a better price. The Cadillac was made to be a conveyance for either a high poobah or a funeral home. No thought was given to anything but comfort and convenience to the people sitting in the rear seat. It was never made to be a regular passenger vehicle.
But for the impracticality of both, they both bring amusement and joy to people. While there will always be those who despise either, most folks have a smile on their face when riding around in one today. We revel in their impracticality, and notice them as completely different things than what we normally park in our driveways.
Well said!
+1
Hmmmm this Caddy limo is 242 inches long which makes it JUST 9 inches longer than a standard 1979 Lincoln Town Car which was 233 inches long. I find that an interesting comparo.
A 2018 Suburban also seats eight (nine, with a split bench up front on the base model), and the RWD version weighs about exactly the same as at the ’62 Caddy. But at 1.5′ shorter (and with a rear-view camera) it’s going to be much easier to park. Most likely holds a lot more stuff and can probably tow a much bigger boat. And it manages 22 mph on the highway. Progress?
The Cadillac still would be a much more stylish ride.
Want to hold even MORE stuff within roughly the same size vehicle? Get a standard length Club Wagon or Transit. The former can seat up to 12 & could probably tow just as big a boat if not BIGGER with the 460 V8 or 6.8L V10 (forget about fuel economy though). The latter can seat up to 10, has come STANDARD with a backup camera since 2016, & even with the base V6 should still be able to tow a decent-sized boat (4.10 gearing definitely helps!). Someone on fordtransitusaforum.com 3 years ago even managed a 22-MPG (not mph) cruising average with this setup (remember, I got up to 26 with the 4.0 in my Aerostar). The Achilles Heel with either van will be rear seat removal, but you will be greatly rewarded with SUBSTANTIAL cargo room behind the 3rd row. But this is America, just drive whatever you want! I just happened to find an Econoline AND a Transit parked behind Food Lion back in June, same size & all.
Speaking of Smart Cars, I saw something this week that I’d previously considered inconceivable: A Smart Car being driven aggressively and recklessly.
This happened while I was driving (slowly) in a school zone in front of an elementary school — school zone speed limit in effect, flashing warning signs, crossing guards, kids, etc. A woman driving a Smart Car was behind me, and then passed me on the wrong side of the street. Probably the most anti-social traffic offense I can think of. And of course, where’s a cop when you want to see one?
I imagine she had to wind that 1-liter engine up pretty hard to pull that off.
I’ve seen it many times – a worked at a place that had Smarts which we drove around in a huge gravel yard. We had one Smart at another place I worked and a guy rolled it while driving enthusiastically on a slippery country road. The thinking was he’d be dead if he’d done it in one of the vans but was saved by the Smart’s safety cell.
A Smart Fortwo probably has a power to weight ratio not far away from an 70s80s base Camaro or Mustang – if I had to beat you in a race in the environment you describe and had a choice of those two, I wouldn’t pick the imaginary Camaro, despite the image.
Wheelbase almost exactly 2x (73.7″ vs 149.8″), FWIW.
I just crunched some “halfway-between” numbers; said car would have 111.7″ wheelbase, 149.8″ long, 3600 lbs, 3.7L (225cid) engine. Someone wanna name a CC (or recent) car that about meets those specs?
Except for length (which I haven’t checked, although 149.8″ seems short) how about a 1975 Dodge Aspen?
Wheelbase is close, weight could get there, and it had 225 cubes thumping away under the hood.
Jason, you don’t disappoint. The very small overhang on our Smart car really does skew this one (Aspen = 198″), but its base 3200 pounds could be bulked up with options pretty easily, I figure. I know you share my Ford Guy thing, but when I typed “225 CID” I couldn’t help but think of the slant six…..
A 71 Dart Swinger comes close with wheelbase of 111 and the 225 cid engine. But it is longer, at about 196 inches and a little lighter at 3k pounds.
A 1968 Falcon in Australia could be had with a 221 ci six and is about 184″ long on a 111″ wb, which is getting closer.
I’m thinking the closest match will be a 1930-40s car.
The Caddy looks like a big dog sniffing a small dog’s butt. It makes me wonder what a cross between the two vehicles would look like. Perhaps an American version of the Triumph Mayflower?
Straight business for the Cadillac’s occupants – no radio antenna.
Notice the Cadillac’s rear door has a “step” in the rocker panel area, vs how the Smart shows a “climb” in its comparable area?
Is it possible the antenna is embedded in the windshield? Not sure when GM first did that.
Unless that was a Cadillac exclusive when this car was built it likely doesn’t have a radio. I don’t know exactly when GM started using the windshield antenna but I can tell you that my 1965 Pontiac had the traditional antenna and my 1973 Vega had the one in the windshield. A good friend had a 1969 Camaro back in the day and I want to say it had the windshield antenna but can’t say for sure. If we want to say late sixties/early seventies that would be when GM started using the antenna imbedded in the windshield.
’70 was the first year for GM’s antenna in the windshield. I knew a dear older man who got a new ’70 Impala, and friends tried to tell him “your windshield has a crack running across it”. It was the antenna!
My recollection is that the ’69 Grand Prix was the first GM car to have the radio antenna embedded in the windshield. It was a plus for looks and resistance to car washes and vandalism, but a minus for reception, even on just the AM band.
Now of course, the ones in the rear or rear quarter glass work just fine.
What a great photo. It almost seems like it’s been photoshopped or an optical illusion with the two being the complete polar opposite of the other. Normally, the smart seems small and tiny with a Cadillac of that vintage being enormous. Yet, front-to-back like that, the smart doesn’t seem so diminutive, nor the Cadillac so huge. More like cartoon caricatures out of Cars.
Just happened to notice, and I don’t think I ever caught on to this eons ago, and of course I knew that the Fleetwood 75 windshield/A pillar were holdovers from 1959/60, but the fins and fin taillights are retained from 1960, also. The standard ’62 Cadillac fins were somewhat shorter, and the fin taillights were more rectangular, the 1960/61 fin taillights had the small curve at the bottom. Interesting, as the lower quarter panel and main taillights are clearly 1962, but mated to the 1960 fins.
This is a fun juxtaposition of two wildly different generational creatures. I had a friend here in the Palm Springs area who bought a Smart car to keep at his second home for weekend runabout purposes, but soon found out how completely impractical it was for errands and shopping, plus, as I recall, there were a lot of issues. It didn’t last very long.
> This is a fun juxtaposition of two wildly different generational creatures
At first I thought you meant a juxtaposition of the Earl-era ’59/’60 Cadillac (windshield, fins) and Mitchell-era ’61/’62 Cadillac (rest of car), LOL. Then I realized you meant the Caddy vs. Smart. (duh! 🙂 )
The fishbowl windshield confused me too – I had no idea Cadillac was still using it on any car in 1962. Was this the last year they did? I can understand why they used the carryover windshield – the roofline and windows are taller than the standard sedans and it may not have been worth the cost of redesigning it every two years. But the 1960 fins baffle me – I don’t see how it would have saved any money compared to using standard 1962 fins. In later Cadillac limos, the rear section seemed identical to those in the sedans, with no stretching in the trunk area. As it is, this is a curious amalgam of late ’50s and early ’60s design; despite the short time period involved, a sea change in styling ethos occurred during that time.
The fishbowl windshield confused me too – I had no idea Cadillac was still using it on any car in 1962. Was this the last year they did?
Would you believe 1965? The ’65 Fleetwood 75 was carried over on the old body, and still with the panoramic windshield. (see attached shot)
The explanation for the different rear ends is that the main rear quarter stamping for the 75 was’62 different than the rest of the car. So they just cobbled it up the best they could with the least amount of money. The low volumes of the 75 meant that they had to amortize the dies over more years.
The 75 finally got the new body in 1966. The ’65 is a real oddball with its 1959 windshield.
Wow, I had forgotten that the ’65 version retained the ’64 styling (I did recall that the ’65 had that old panoramic windshield). At first I thought that you had included a picture of a ’64 75 limo, but there are those distinctive ’65 wheel covers.
And here is a picture of a ’66 Fleetwood 75, which makes you wonder why GM didn’t produce this for 1965, as they carried it over for the next few years.
I’m reading up on ’60s 75 limos and apparently the ’65 was a barely-modified ’64 all around. The rest of the Cadillac line got not only a new body, but a new perimeter frame (finally shared with other GM brands; gone were the separate frames for each brand). Surprising for me because the ’70s and ’80s Caddy limos I recall always changing in lockstep with the regular sedans. There were infrequent exceptions, like the ’82-83 limos retaining the V8-6-4 368 that was used only in 1981 elsewhere instead of changing to the HT4100.
The fishbowl (as you refer to it) windshield lasted until 1965 in the series 75 limo. It still retained the old 1964 styling. The limo was a low production car with its own roof that was not shared with any other model. Therefore, due to the economy of scale, this prestigious model was often behind the times for updates. Many think of the 1964 Cadillac as the last to feature tailfins, but the 1965 limo wore that styling for one more year, making it the last.
The Fleetwood 75 was almost handbuilt, and wasn’t changed like the rest of the Cadillacs. They would use the basic platform for long periods and just update some of the external sheetmetal. The 59 was a complete redo, and they used that one thru 1965. Then 66-70, 71-76, and 77 to the end of the factory limo.
There was one more – in ’85 they started building 75 limousines on the new downsized (again) FWD unibody platform and continued through 1987 – this even though they could have kept the old RWD one around easily since the sedan version was sold through 1992 as the Brougham.
As a kid, I was fascinated by the 59-60 GM wraparound windshield with the curved A-pillars, and I considered the change to a more conventional design in 1961 to be retrograde.
And the fact that the Cadillac Fleetwood 75, GM’s most expensive car, continued to use this windshield through 1965 was proof of its superiority!
I knew nothing of course back then of tooling, economies of scale, or even the hazards of dogleg A-pillars.
The Caddy & Smart pairing reminds me of a Mutt & Jeff pairing.
The Caddy may weigh 3.23 times more than the Smart, but it carries its weight in a trim and svelte manner. The Smart looks tubby and chubby.
Since it doesn’t look like anyone else brought it up, I looked up their heights since they look very similar in the picture. Turns out the Smart Car is slightly taller – the Cadillac is 59″ tall, and the Smart is 61″ tall.
Where is the previous picture?
??
What does “one more time” in the title refer to here? I could’ve sworn there was another “long and short of it” post (I think it had a VW Beetle), but I can’t find it via the search feature.
We’ve had many Outtakes that paired small and large cars in the past. Unfortunately, they’re not easy to find, since we don’t have a specific category for them. Use your imagination. 🙂
There have been other posts on the same theme, do a search of the site.
Here’s another with a Smart and a newer Caddy…
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/uncategorized/cc-outtake-the-short-and-the-long-of-it/
Those specs and dimensions were interesting. Seems like, inch for inch, pound for pound, if you look at it in ratios, there is no real progress to the Smart car versus the old Caddy. I’m sure the intangibles, if you could call them that, are much superior for the Smart car. Items such as emissions, crash protection (that video of the Smart hitting the wall was very impressive in regards to structural rigidity of the cabin), dependability, and such. I’ll take the Caddy.
Too, too funny. Thanks for the laugh.
The standard ’60 and ’61 fins are slightly different. This 75 has ’61 fins and taillights on ’62 fenders. Maybe they had some left over. The ’63 75 appears to have ’62 fins on ’63 fenders, but the ’64 75 has ’64 fins.
The middle side window looks to be just as wide as its door. That must have been tricky to engineer.