Paul’s excellent writeup of the 1965 Lincoln Continental from earlier today prompted me to post this Series 62 Cadillac 2 Door Coupe as an opportunity to more closely compare and contrast the different styling & design treatments each marque was using at the time.
Cadillac’s glittering excess from only a few years earlier had been greatly toned down by 1963, and as Paul pointed out, the roofline had adopted a more formal, squared-off profile. It almost feels like it belongs on a different car in comparison to the smooth, flowing lines of the car’s flanks, which had themselves been simplified from the previous year.
There remained a good bit of “fussiness” in some details—from this angle, the Cadillac comes across a bit overdone to my eye when compared to the Lincoln.
Where the Continental seemed to exude a sense of solidness and mass, the Cadillac was still holding on to the vestiges of the streamlined/jet age era—almost every line on the car is screaming “motion!” and the tail still mimicked a jet fighter’s exhaust.
As beautiful as the Continental is (in my opinion), the target market for this class of cars resonated better with the Cadillac: compared to the ~31,000 Continentals sold in 1963, over 64,000 Series 62 Cadillacs rolled off dealer lots and over 164,000 units of all Cadillac models were sold in 1963.
IMO, the ’63 and ’64 Cadillacs were the best looking of the 1960s Cadillacs. Imperial greatly toned down for ’63 . . . sort of . . . . from the C pillar back anyway. In terms of performance, Imperial was the leader. Yes – I love the class Continental look.
I never cared for the front end on this generation of Cadillac. It shared the same creased nose with the 1965 Impala and the lowly Chevrolet pickup. It not my favorite styling queue.
My father had a 1964 Coupe deVille in Bahama Sand with white contrasting top painted and the rare bucket seat with console option.
I agree that the 63/64 is probably among the best designs of the 60s.
I typically do not like white Cadillacs before the mid 70s. For some reason it makes them look cheap an appliance-like. The radiant metallic of those years makes the cars look divine.
On a technical note, for 1963 the 390 engine that was standard, while retaining the same displacement as the previous years, was redesigned and had more in common with the 429 that was offered in 1964.
Picture below looked like our car but the pictured car is RHD from OZ.
That era’s luxury cars are favorites of mine. I have owned the 63 Fleetwood and the 64 Imperial. So far, the Connie has eluded me (although I did own its close cousin – the 61 Thunderbird).
The Cadillac was like the captain of the college football team – a tendency to brag a bit about himself, although he could usually back it up with competence. The Lincoln was like the dignified son of privilege who did everything tastefully. The Imperial was like the really smart kid of modest background who was a bit awkward, never completely fitting in.
As for the Cad and Lincoln, I like them both, but in different ways. I would happily own either of them (or a contemporary Imperial as well). The 63-64 Cadillac looks better as a 4 window sedan or as a Fleetwood 60 Special than as a coupe.
That’s a great analogy. I wouldn’t have thought of it that way, but you’re right.
+2
I really don’t recall finding one of these in years. Good find Ed.
The other really remarkable feature of 1963-64 Cadillacs is the superb interior fit and finish and the quality of the materials. Few if any interior controls, switches, materials are shared with low-end GM brands.
The 64 is the year to have for one of these, the fins are a bit smaller, but you get the 429 over the 390 and the brand new Turbo 400, plus Automatic Climate Control makes its intro.
The 63 Cadillac was one of my first automotive loves, I remember being at a restaurant with my parents as a kid and a red convertible deVille pulled into the parking lot, I went insane, I liked cars, but I had never seen anything like that before, the owner was nice enough to let me sit inside for a minute. He must have seen the lust in my eyes.
See, I enjoy the space-age themes of the late-50s/early-60s, so my preferences are the 61-62 Cadillacs and the 62 Imperial.
To me, as Laurence Jones raised in an earlier article, the ’63-’64 Cadillac is the greatest postwar Cadillac. It is my favorite of all cars, ever. It strikes me as the perfect balance between the ’50s and ’60s design themes…just enough formality, just enough fins, neither too Broughamy nor too rocket-shippy. By all accounts a great engine and transmission, the elimination of the wacky wrap around windows. Distinctive enough to be noticed over the Buick or Olds, but not so much as to be parodied. Beautiful interior. Big enough to be a Cadillac, but not so big as to be bloated and shaky. Elvis in his prime, not 1977 Elvis. Straddling that delicate balance between class and glitz that was luxury.
I know I’ll be in the minority but the ’61-’65 Continental never wowed me. I think it is one of the most overrated designs ever (but then, I think the Kennedys are some of the most overrated people ever, so maybe I link them somehow!). Seriously, I do understand the revolutionary aspects of its design as a departure from the late ’50s Chrysler and GM models, but I think it’s a dull looking car, and I think the front end looks terrible! The ’60-’64 Buicks and Oldsmobiles to me conveyed understated elegance better.
I have to tip my hat to the Continental though. If it weren’t for the formality that was praised in those, chances are Cadillac wouldn’t have chastened up so quickly.
Although I kind of agree with you, The Cadillacs of this era were better over the road performers versus the Continentals, and were a hair more athletic and economical (until the 429/Turbo-hydramatic combo came online). But my personal favorite will always be the ’62. I wouldn’t mind a Continental, but it wouldn’t be the first choice I’d make with my own money with luxury cars of the early 60’s.
It’s all in the tooling.
Whoever requires the biggest stamping press to punch out a 2 door rear quarter wins!
Jo-Han made a decent model of the 1963 coupe back in the day. It does lack a nice crest on the hood and they made an error in placing a Mopar-type rear view mirror on the dash. Would look a lot better in Craig’s Bahama Sand and white combination – that’s a beautiful car.
Try again to post the picture.
I dunno Ed. As far as Cadillacs go the 63 is right up there with the 64 as the quintessential Cadillac (I’m not a skegs guy). But the 64 Lincoln has it beat in every way expect for the drive. Nothing drives like an old Caddy.
I think it comes down to what you are looking for. To use mid-century architecture, a 60’s Caddy is a googie cofffe shop or a fancy bowling alley, a Lincoln Continental is a Miesian glass box, and the Imperial split the difference, pre 64 definitely on the googie side, while post 64 Danish modern on wheels. If you like fins and baroque detailing there is no way a Lincoln Continental will move you like a mid-60’s Cadillac you will always see the Lincoln as overrated. There is no denying that Lincoln was the pace setter, The Fleetwood Eldorado was a spritual decendent of the Continental Mark II, and the post 64 Imperial was Elwood Engle’s child with his second wife. I loved Cadillacs at first for the fins, then moved on to the cool mid century elegance of Lincolns and now find myself more drawn towards Imperials with their quirky charm.
“If you like fins and baroque detailing there is no way a Lincoln Continental will move you like a mid-60′s Cadillac you will always see the Lincoln as overrated.”
I understand where you’re coming from; I think that comparison is apt between the ’58-’60 Cadillac vs. the ’61-’65 Lincoln, but not really between the ’63-’68 Cadillac and the Lincoln.
But I don’t think the ’63-’64 (and certainly anything that came after up until at least ’69 and probably not until ’71) could be characterized as “baroque”
When I think of baroque detailing I think of those characteristics common to the ’50s (dagmars, fins, wrap around windshields, rear grilles, jet-turbine shapes, little atomic symbols on the inside a la the late 50s Lincoln profiled a while back) or the ’70s (paisley and plaid interior options, opera windows, vinyl tops, brougham upholstery, fake wood). The spaceship and the bordello. Things we look at nostalgically but also maybe chuckle a little “can ‘ya believe people wanted FINS/PAISLEY UPHOLSTERY on their cars back then?”
I don’t feel as though you can look at the ’63 and say that. The ’63-’68 have limited fins, formal rooflines, minimal vinyl and wood trim, a rather elegant dashboard, and rather formal colors for the interiors. They share these characteristics with the Lincolns of those years, except I think they are more balanced, bolder, and less bland. The gimmicky design traits of the 50s had either been eliminated entirely or tastefully reworked into assets. Yet, the bordello and bloated Elvis traits did not begin to creep in until the late 60s/early 70s, by which time they’d also begun to affect Lincoln.
I look at as Lincoln setting the tone that necessarily pushed Cadillac to step back and tone down the silliness, but then Cadillac actually making a really great American luxury car that looked better than the Lincoln. That’s pretty much what they were saying in that comparo from 1965…the Cadillac was basically the equal of “winner” Mercedes except, as I recall, in handling.
But then again, I’m biased since the ’63 is my favorite…
Cadillacs of this era still look good the lincoln not so much, I still see Caddies this age in regular passenger service here the lincoln never made it as a luxury make in this part of the world.
To me, 1963 is when Cadillac started to get it’s act together and abondon many of the late 1950’s excesses. The 1961 Lincoln really made the 1961 Cadillac look old fast. I always though the 61-62 Cadillacs were far too busy and overstyled. Too many character lines on its flanks, upper and lower fins, along with an overly bland front end, and busy rear end. Not that the car itself was a poor car. It was a fine car for it’s day, and competed just fine with the nicer looking Lincoln.
The 1963 Cadillac is really not much different mechanically than a 1961, or even a 1959 model for that matter. The styling was vast cleaned up, and it still offered class leading ride, comfort and noise levels. The ’63 kind of set the tone for the rest of the 60’s, a more formal look with smooth slab sided styling and with prominent grille and nose treaments. Things only got better in 1964, with the smaller fins, the hot performing 429 (probably the quickest Cadillac of the 1960’s) and the vastly improved TH400 transmission.
The 63 differs substantially from a 59, the 61 & 63 are a lot closer. The 63 still resides on the X-frame, which it did until 1965. In 1963, the engine was updated substantially internally although it still displaced 390. The 63 390 is a lot closer to the 429 for 1964. For 1961, Cadillac redesigned the suspension and steering systems. Of course the body and interior changed with the new style. The only thing major that carried over from 1960 to 1961 was the engine and transmission. Of course as said the THM400 was phased in during the 64 model year being made standard on all Cadillacs for 1965. The fastest Cadillac of the 1960’s was the 1968 Eldorado.
Yes, the 61 and 63 are closer, but there was the chassis from 1959 is not massively different than that of the 63-63 models. I know the suspension was revised in 1961, but it wasn’t a total re-engineering of the chassis, it was a revision. It mostly amounted to a new design for the lower control arms (from a dual point arm to a single point with a strut rod). The overall design wasn’t really changed.
The body shell wasn’t extensively changed over those years either (supported by the fact that the 1964 Series 75 still used the same 1959 Cowl and windshield). The fact that the both the 1959 and 1963 used the 390(even though it was updated) again supports the similarities and the lack of MAJOR re-engineering. I wasn’t trying to say the cars were identical, but in terms of engineering, there weren’t any major changes between these years. Cadillac simiply refined, revised and update the car as time went on. Obviously there were extensive changes to the interiors and body styling through these years. 1965, was a complete redesign to the chassis and body.
When I was referring to quickest Cadillac, I should have specified “fullsize”, ie excluding the smaller Eldo. That said, they are pretty on par performance-wise:
1964 Cadillac Sedan DeVille:
0-60 8.5 secs
1/4 mile – 16.8 secs @ 85 MPH
1968 Cadillac Eldorado:
0-60 8.6 secs
1/4 mile – 16.8 secs @ 84 MPH
Here you can see that the Chassis was not heavily revised between 1959 – 1964. You can see the alteration in the front suspension.
1959 Chassis:
http://dougjenkinsgarage.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/100_00121.jpg
http://www.cad-1964-restoration.com/RESTORATION/FRAME/ROLLING_CHASSIS/Fahrgestell_komplett_neu_gro_.jpg
My favorite Cadillacs are the ’63 and ’64 models, and the coupe would be my first choice…in black, red, or maybe a dark blue. The Lincolns (and indeed, most Fords) of that era never did it for me – I always thought they were kind of ugly. The Cadillac had shed its Fifties bloat and is, to me, a graceful and elegant design that has aged well.
I didn’t get to see this CC until just now, and could not help but note Ed’s words, “as Paul pointed out, the roofline had adopted a more formal, squared-off profile. It almost feels like it belongs on a different car in comparison to the smooth, flowing lines of the car’s flanks”
That’s because the roof stamping is the same as that of the 1963-64 Chevrolet four-door hardtop. The rear windows differ but the metal is the same. Even on the 1963 Cadillac, GM was cost-cutting.
Chevrolet photo from impalas.com