Another great shot posted at the Cohort by Dean Edwards. Shot probably in the early ’80s? Cadillac and other American cars still enjoyed a very high prestige factor in Europe in the early ’60s. The were very often black, with blackwall tires like this one. This ’62 Cadillac is undoubtedly an original official import.
It reminds me of a little reminiscence Stephanie wrote here about a ride in a black ’61 Cadillac in Geneva in 1972.
The Citroen looks larger in comparison to the Cadillac than I would have expected. Perhaps it is the height. If one crashed into each other, how would they fare? Citroens always looked flimsy, but maybe I am being unfair.
“The Citroen looks larger in comparison to the Cadillac than I would have expected. Perhaps it is the height.”
I was addressing the height issue with regard to “longer, lower, wider” American cars yesterday in the discussion regarding the the 1958 Lincoln / Continental. In modern settings, the old land yachts can look surprisingly diminutive.
There are possibly some perspective issues in this photo, the Citroen is sitting atop the road crown, but its height at the top of the hood, the belt-line and roof, in brighter colors than the Cadillac, do make it stand out.
The Caddy’s front suspension also looks to be sagging a bit, while the Citroen almost seems to be sitting high on its underpinnings.
The Citroen has hydropneumatic suspension so is height adjustable and is lifted a little no doubt to still give a cloud like ride over poor pavement something a Cadillac could not do.
I’ve owned many hydropneumatic big Cits and I can tell you from first hand experience that the Citroëns suspension is superior only on bumpy/wavy roads. It irons out the waves almost completely. Very comfy.
On really bad surfaces however, like cobblestone or roads with ripples or pot holes, hydropneumatic suspension cannot react fast enough (it sort of blocks) and is just as (un)comfortable as conventional suspension.
The Cadillac would fare a lot better in a crash. Its sheer weight and overall sturdy construction would give it a clear advantage. The Citroën DS was known to self-destruct in accidents. The doors, fenders and roof would just come off in a bad crash.
The weight, yes. The rest, no.
The Citroen was designed for the motor and box to slide under the cabin in a smash, and the steering column was very short. It had crumple zones. (The stiff wheel and column alone would kill you in the Caddie). The central passenger tub of the French job is known to have great strength, necessary because any panels – which might indeed have flown off in a crash – were not structural.
The Citroens took the most extraordinary beatings in their unlikely career as rally cars, which included winning the Monte Carlo.
They are anything but flimsy.
The Citroën DS had no crumple zones. It was a futuristic design in many ways, but passive safety was not really one of them. In fact, crumple zone technology was only first used in the Mercedes-Benz W111 (1959).
As for the strength of the passenger compartment: I think you are talking about the Traction Avant. That car indeed had a very strong passenger compartment. As for the “safety” of the passenger compartment of the DS: just google “Citroën DS crash” and look at the pics….
The single spoke was for safety, and the mechanicals were designed to slide under: both are passive safety integrated into the design itself in a way literally no other car of 1955 had. As to crumple zones, they may or may not have necessarily have been of the Barenyi type that Mercedes put into the Finnie, but were nevertheless designed with that in mind.
No old cars are anywhere near as safe to crash as even the lowliest modern, but as for the superior crashworthiness of the Cadillac, just google “‘1960’s Cadillac crashes” and look at the pictures.
Those old Caddies do not do well in crashes DS Citroens do much better including occupant survival, they were designed with safety features long before anyone else though of it the structure is very strong being a unibody with bolt on panels, Body on frame cars simply dont compare.
Adding to what Justy mentioned, most people didn’t wear seatbelts in 1962, dashboards weren’t padded, steering columns weren’t collapsible, the fatality rate in big cars was also high. People being ejected in crashes was common, regardless of the size of the car.
Over the Labour Day weekend in 1960, there were 80 auto accident fatalities across Canada. For a country of only 18 million people at the time, that is a very high number of deaths.
@ justy baum:
The question was: “which car would fare better if one crashed into the other”.
Clearly the Cadillac.
Then: the DS was NOT designed for the engine to “slide under the car” in a crash. That would be completely impossible technically, as the engine is placed behind the front axle and -as a result- protrudes into the passenger compartment.
Please look at att. pic of a DS body and tell me where the engine goes in case of a crash. And while you’re at it, also check the “safe” passenger compartment.
The DS was in many aspects a very futuristic car and -in my opinion- one of the most beautiful cars ever produced, but let’s not exaggerate its safety.
No, the “question” from you did not say one crashing into the other, but simply “in a crash”. In your new question, the first part of what I said originally might well apply, that is, the sheer weight of the US iron might overwhelm. Otherwise, again, no.
“No”, because in a decent crash, the Cadillac had literally not a single passive safety feature in design, and a few known to be the opposite.
The Citroen had several, namely an attempt at crumple zones, the steering mechanism, and the under-the-car engine slide. That latter is a claim made by the makers since release, so I cannot tell you how their engineering intended this to occur, other than speculating that they had tested/calculated that in a frontal crash, the impact would ride over the gearbox forcing the entire gearbox/engine unit downwards away from squashing the passengers.
I have had a look at the passenger base unit for you, and cannot tell you it is safe, as this is something, again, that I did not say. I said “clearly has great strength”, which, as it is capable of supporting a fully-functioning motor vehicle sans panelwork, it clearly is. Again, as stated, no old car is a safe as a modern, and in that sense, it likely isn’t safe – but I’d take my chances in it over the Cadillac if forced to choose, as at least some effort was made.
And that was my entire point, not to “exaggerate” the safety of the DS but to point out the entire lack of it in the Caddie, beyond bulk.
Anyway, maybe the Caddie would indeed “fare a lot better in a crash” – but the passengers wouldn’t, which is the entire point of passive safety engineering, which had at least some prominence first in the DS.
Might I very politely suggest you have a look at the infamous 2009 Malibu vs ’59 Chev crash test? I reckon the Cit would better that, causing doubtlessly bad injuries, but not necessarily the certain death in the GM body. (I stress politely, as if I were a less polite person, I suspect that by now I would be suggesting that you not only watch the test but also buy a ’62 Cadillac and hop aboard to repeat it)
Comprehensive reading is a talent, justy.
My first post in this topic was an answer to the question posed by Jonathan E: “which car would fare better if one crashed into the other”. That’s the initial question and there are no “new” questions”.
Next to a long list of hydropneumatic Citroëns I have also owned some classic Detroit iron, so I know that early 60’s GM cars had no safety features to speak of. However, the only safety features ever advertised for the DS were superior road holding, a dual-circuit brake system and the single spoke steering wheel (which can also be found in the 2CV…)
You clearly have no first hand experience with old Citroëns. Instead, you’re just repeating some common mythology surrounding the DS.
Regarding your last remark: may I politely suggest we do this test like intended by Jonathan E? So, an offset crash test between a 1968-ish DS and a 1962 Cadillac? Feel free to hop aboard the DS and experience its superior safety firsthand.
My dear sir, whilst I will take in good grace the compliment that is your last line, as imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I would politely suggest that if you are to repeat the satirical comment of another by way of comeback, it is best to at least try and improve upon it, lest you be thought lacking wit, though it might be said by an impolite soul that the condescension and pomposity of the rest of what you have written (still without answering anything raised beyond mere negation) bespeaks a dullness of outlook that might just confirm the suspected case of dreary witlessness, though ofcourse, I hasten to say that I am not such an impolite soul myself.
As it seem most unlikely that there would be anything that might be called a meeting of the minds between us – and I will not add “because that would mean having one each, giving me an unfair advantage”, as that would be rude – regarding the issues at hand, I must, alas, in consideration of the short length of a human life, inform you that I shall proceed no further in this otherwise scintillating exchange, and add only in parting that I wish you all happiness in this current isolation and the thought that your permanent continuation of the same even after the expiry of any mandatory direction to do so would be an inestimable contribution to the future wellbeing of mankind.
Taken just in front of Notre Dame at the streetlight circa 1990. I couldn’t believe my luck and timing to have these two lined up at the light, and just had time to squeeze off a shot.
Amazing picture! The setting and the cars!
+1
The 3D feature of desktop Apple Maps has been particularly helpful in geolocating family photographs, and Paris is included, so I can confirm your description. This view is looking directly south, with the buildings of 13-17 Quai de Montebello on the other side of the river.
The irony was that I really wanted to see Notre Dame, but there was a huge line of people trying to get inside. Same with the Louvre and the Eiffel tower. There must have been a wait of too many hours just to get inside of the usual tourist spots. I’ve never seen so many tourists in one place! I was compelled to walk all over the place and take candid shots instead.
Certainly the right place at the right time! I have stood in that spot, but only in night time. A photo from today would look much different. Thanks for sharing all these great photos.
My, what a great picture! If this isn’t the Alpha and Omega of luxury motoring in the early 1960s I don’t know what would be.
Not making a contrast, but Stephanie is clearly a woman who cares about her writing. Well done.
This is an outstanding photo. Ironically, if you were to ask non-car people which is the newest design, the vast majority would likely say the Citroen.
Agree entirely.
They’d be right, literally as this front end design was a later 60s facelift of the original, I’m not so sure it would look as overtly advanced to your average non-car person with the original round headlight design
That would look something like this.
Pic of a 1963 Cadillac next to a 1965 Citroën ID19.
That photo definitely gives the Cadillac a bit more gravitas then the subject photo.
Excellent point Matt. Looking at the great image ‘MG’ supplied, the Citroen definitely doesn’t look as modern or advanced with the round sealed beam headlights. However, it still looks like the more modern design IMO. I can’t think of too many styling features that truly date a car like the tail fins on the Cadillac.
Yep, agree. Even with round headlights it still doesn’t look anything like a mid 50s car. The shape itself has really stood the test of time.
They might be more equal as godesses go than one might assume.
I suspect the Caddie has barely any more legroom, despite being some 32 inches longer, because the wheelbase is – believe it or not – merely 6.7 inches more than the big Cit.
And in net figures, I’m giving the 325 bhp Caddie 275, meaning about 17 pounds per hp. The Cit, which I’m making an injected model, has 140 bhp net, meaning 20 pound per hp. (Yes, I know the injection wasn’t available in ’62, but this four-eyed wonder is at least a post-’67 job anyway).
I’d still worship either, ofcourse.
Friend of mine has a 59 Caddie he hires out for weddings no there isnt any room in it the size is on the outside not the inside, it hires on looks alone not interior space or ride comfort.
Having had a 66 ID-19 and ’68 DS-21 Pallas, as well as several ’60’s Cadillac’s, the amount of legroom was approximately the same between ’62 Cad and ’68 DS, however, the Dash of the DS was considerably closer (mine had the full width lower dash a/c also), as was door panel, and the width was less, the seats and comfort were superb. The ‘engine under the car’ item was mentioned when bought new, the box section that intruded into the interior was reinforced so that if the impact was great enough in a head on crash the engine would be forced downward, under the car, the horizontal mounted spare wheel ahead of the engine was another energy absorber. For side impact the DS is not great, IF the other car is above the frame rails. I watched a video of a thrill driver, drive a full size ’70’s Chevy Caprice broadside THROUGH six DS’s parked side to side, but with suspension down., some of the parts were 10-15 feet in the air. Behind the dealership was a New DS setting, another car had crossed the divider on I-80, hit the DS head on, pretty well smashed back to the windshield, the nose on the ground, but the engine had been forced part way under the passenger area, the dealer said both passengers survived, with injuries. Domestically, Chrysler Corp had reinforced firewalls, angled to force the engine under in a crash, I’ve seen a few in wrecking yards, but have no idea on suviveability.
As for the ’62 Cadillac, I had several, one was a triple black convertible. The legroom was about the same, but the DS felt like a cockpit, the Cad, like a living room. On a tight winding road, dark night, I was driving quickly (hey, I was 17) I just got the car, which looked new, but the steering linkage came apart in a tight curve at around 50 mph (prior owner didn’t use lockwasher’s), I always wear seat belts, but was sliding toward a very large tree, both feet were trying to shove the brake pedal through the firewall, on impact, the rear of the hood lifted and smashed the windshield. The seat belt helped save me, massive brusing but still hit the steering wheel, the list; both front teeth, lower ribs, double hernia whiplash, severe lower back pain, and damaged both wrists. i got better-eventually. GM front ends did not have much strength, held together by the radiator support and bumper. The Ford and Chrysler products with connected front fenders (1 piece) front ends are much stronger. I trust my 64-65-66 Imperials, with their construction and weight they tend to make whatever they run into the crush zone
Is there a website to sell classic cars in Europe? A.R. Thorson
Where in Europe? (which country)
Anyway, this is a major one, the German website mobile.de (an eBay company). Vast, pretty much all ages of cars and other vehicles:
https://www.mobile.de/
It seems that most Americans were lead to believe that sheer mass would provide for passenger safety. They bought that line completely. I believe that in 1955 Ford offered “Lifeguard design” which consisted I think of a padded dash top, padded sun visors, and gasp! optional seat belts. The program was not successfully received. A hazard in 50’s cars was the solid steering column and wheel. If you were lucky you would just break your rib cage against the steering wheel, maybe your jaw and teeth also. In worse cases the steering column would be driven back and up through the driver’s space, breaking their neck. I remember taking first aid classes back in the 1970’s, where we would learn how to splint a “flail chest”. Back in February I took an advanced first aid class and asked some of my “under thirty” co workers if they had even heard of a flail chest. They hadn’t. Thank God ( and enlightened govt. standards ) for modern passenger safety systems.
I’ve heard of a flail chest, but then again, I’m around your age. Also recall that horn rings were called “cookie cutters” from what they’d do to your chest in a frontal collision.
The “bulk” idea appeals so strongly to what seems to be logical (and in very specific circumstances, might prove to be, such as hitting a weak little car not too fast). Same appeal arises from having a very stiff car, like an old-school 4wd. Ofcourse, we now know that isn’t what will help when it’s serious.
Old cars are horribly unsafe. It’s not widely remembered that one of Nader’s criticisms of the Corvair was the extreme forward mount of the (rigid) steering column, barely some inches behind the bumper. Even a not-too-bad crash could kill with that thing stabbing you. The car column generally was generally so lethal that it’s (I think) the very first structural safety requirement ever – to make it collapsible – that arose from the ’68 legislation.
The force that moderns can sustain whilst still cushioning the occupants is astounding, and thank god for it indeed: for sure, the engineering brains that are able to meet ever-increasing standards must be working on a deity-level!
Unfortunately, the 64-65-66 Imperials were lowered in number for years, by destruction derby’s, until a friend, who derbyed one, received this statement. ‘1964 through 1966 Imperial’s will no longer be allowed in destruction derby’s, they have an unfair construction advantage over any other automobile, ever built.’ It’s framed on his wall
Don’t forget the deep dish steering wheel.