This shot posted by LeSabretooth Tiger caught my eye; when doesn’t a vintage Cadddy convertible in traffic? It certainly shows off how distinctive it is compared to current cars, but there’s something else I’ve been noticing more and more over the years: They’re not as big as they once seemed.
Especially in the 1980s and 1990s, when everything became so small, these big cars from the 60s and 70s really earned their name “land yacht” and “barge”. But nowadays, when everything is so much bigger and taller, they’re starting to look downright delicate. Still a bit long, but the overall mass is surprisingly modest. Who would have thought we’d get to that point? More like “land runabout”.
Paul, I think it more a visual trick. An old Cadillac is a huge car. Just try to park it in a garage (and then work on it!). What I think is going on is that the height of the car is visually spread over a large length, and the visual mass of the car is relatively low compared to current cars. The DeVille is 18.5 ft long, and about 6.5 ft wide. With great top down visibility (you can see every corner of the car!), it is far easier to park than many newer cars with smaller footprints.
i have an 18 footer and have noticed both points. It’s doesn’t look ungainly from a distance but it is long. I have a steep, narrow driveway and have to back out using the side mirrors. The weird thing is that the Cadillac is the easiest car by far to back out. The straight sides and modest width (’86) really help. The hardest cars to back out are rounded ones, doesn’t matter the size.
Absolutely valid point. I was up close with a ’68 Pontiac Bonneville converible last summer, and the car seemed almost small. The impact of the longer, lower, wider days was very evident. The hood was almost dinner table height, the roof quite low, the wheels almost tiny. The two places the ’60s cars (full size only) still have an advantage is overall length (unless you are talking today’s trucks) and width.
Overall mass is surprisingly modest.
You nailed it with that. The volumes on the caddy are defined by flat planes and razor edges as opposed to the too-many-protein-shakes look of the blue car. The thickening out of details such as pillars and waistlines just makes new cars seem… thicker.
Like someone hooked up an air hose to the body, and then walked away and forgot about it.
With the growth in dimensions of pickup trucks over the past 25 years, many “big cars” seem positively petite. I knew a guy who kept remarking about how huge my son’s 89 Grand Marquis was. But compared to quite a few modern cars, it was not big at all. And the overall length of some of these trucks is pretty impressive.
What does surprise me is how after parking places got narrower in the early 80s, they have never widened back up to accommodate the wider vehicles that are so common, at least in the midwestern US.
People are getting bigger, but airliner seats are getting closer together too. 🙂
I get the same comments about how my ’96 Vic is a “boat”. Compared to what??? Seems small to me 🙂 .
They don’t build small cars today, they build large cars that look like small cars. For example, look at the current VW Golf versus a Mk1 Rabbit (Golf). (all figures from Wikipedia)
wheelbase +9″
length +21″
width +7″
height +2″
weight +1000lb
People comment about how large my Chryslers are, but they were intentionally styled to look large. When you look at them and other old cars in traffic, they don’t look as large by comparison. When you actually spot an old compact car in traffic, such as an old British sports car, they look TINY.
One thing you notice is how low the beltline is and how large the greenhouse is. You can see much more of the people in the car than you can with newer cars. They also have smaller wheels; newer cars have scaled-up the wheels as they scaled-up the other dimensions, to keep the proportions looking “proper”.
I am not sure what current Cadillac would compare with the pictured car, but I have owned a 2002 Seville, 2007 SRX, 2013 ATS and now a 14 CTS, so I think the current CTS compares to the FWD Seville and even is a fair replacement for the RWD STS. Vintage Cadillacs (from the 50’s and 60’s) were more than 4000 lbs and about 220 to 225 inches long. The downsized late 70’s Cadillac deVilles were still more than 4000 lbs and 220 inches long. Wheelbase is down to 121 from 129. The big change comes with the FWD deVille for the 85 model year: wheelbase 111, length 195, weight 3300.
My CTS(AWD) is 3900 lbs, 195 inchs long with a wheelbase of 115 inches. This is lighter than the last FWD DTS’s. I think the current Cadillacs are designed to protect the occupants far better than vintage Cadillacs and are not all that heavy either. The FWD 80’s Cadillacs may have been light, but were not designed for a crash.
It makes some sense that fullsize cars aren’t getting bigger. There’s a practical upper limit to how big owner-driven cars can be. 🙂 I have issues with your comparisons though.
The CTS is the successor to the Catera, which was an “entry level” midsize Cadillac. The Catera wasn’t a successor to anything, unless you count the “entry level” Cimmaron. 🙂 The STS is the successor to the Seville. The Catera and Seville (and later CTS and STS) were sold side-by-side until the STS was cancelled. The Seville/STS was larger than the Catera/CTS in every dimension. So I don’t agree that the CTS is comparable to the STS or Seville.
I looked-up the DTS which was the successor to the DeVille and made through 2011. I hesitate to compare against the XTS because, though considered a fullsize car, it’s slotted between the smaller STS and larger DTS in size. Cadillac claims it is not a direct replacement for the DTS in their line-up, which means that they no longer offer a _large_ fullsize flagship car.
Comparing the DTS with a 1970 DeVille, the newer one is fairly uniformly shrunken, and by a considerable amount:
wb -14″
l -17″
w -5″
wt -750 lb (approx)
One of the most reasonable comparisons I can think of would be a 1969-71 Chrysler 300 versus the current 300: still fullsize, still RWD, still available with a V8, catering to about the same market segment. Relative to the old one, the new 300 is:
wheelbase -4″
length -25″
width -4″
height +3″
weight -400lb (approx)
Wheelbase and width are close but overall length is much shorter because there is so little overhang. That has as much to do with current styling trends as anything. Of course, if you want fullsize today, many people choose an SUV. Discussing the safety of new cars versus old ones is a totally different topic.
I did understand that the Cimarron was a small Cadillac, but while Cadillac seemed to think it somehow compared with a BMW, that idea was rubbish. What exactly the Catera was supposed to do has never been clear to me. As a placeholder until the CTS was put into production makes some sense. The first generation CTS was not a successor to the Catera. The CTS was a sports sedan, while the Catera was not, unless you are comparing with other Cadillacs. The 2003-2007 CTS was a good first attempt at a sports sedan. The second generation CTS was bigger than the 2003, and as such it moved up closer to the STS.
The new CTS is a fraction of an inch narrower than the STS and about 1 inch shorter in length and wheelbase. The interior quality is far better than the 2002 Seville’s. The current CTS is not what the first generation CTS was. The current ATS is what the first CTS was supposed to be, but wasn’t quite.
The CTS has moved a rung up the line and now it fills a space that more or less used to be filled by the Seville and the STS. The ATS is now where the old 1st and 2nd generation CTS used to be.
The 3rd generation CTS now has more equipment and features that previous 2 generations didn’t offer. A loaded 3rd gen CTS V-Sport with the 420hp twin turbocharged V6 and adaptive cruise controls tallys up at around $71,000.
My car was a couple of grand short of that. Then with incentives and dealer ready to sell last years models, especially after it had sat there for some time, I got a fairly good deal.
OK. I guess I don’t follow Cadillac model changes closely enough to know who’s on first.
That +3″ height on the new 300 vs. the old is a huge increase.
How do you like your 14 CTS? I love the looks of the car, every time I see one on the road, I can’t help but stare.
I drove it to the west coast which more or less got it broken in. I liked my ATS, but found that on long trips to Rochester that at the end of the day I was ready to get out. The CTS was more comfortable and even at the end of the third day of driving I did not feel like I needed to get out of the car.
It does seem bigger than the ATS, but does handle nicely. Even on icy roads the 19 inch tires seem to have good grip. One day near my house a Jeep had spun off the road backwards into a fence. Not sure why. The next day some other car/crossover had spun off the road across the other lane backwards into a snow bank too. I did not think the roads were that slippery.
While the CTS is not a flagship car for Cadillac, it is a very nice car, and I think a replacement for the STS (either FWD or RWD). The XTS is a good DTS replacement. I really like the reconfigurable guage although I like the performance setup best I think. The magnetic shocks and longer wheelbase give a very smooth ride compared to the ATS. The adaptive cruise control would downshift the transmission to hold the set speed on steeper downhills.
The Cadillac dealership that I occasionally lurk around at after hours did have a couple of 14’s that they were blowing out, but they were also priced near that realm, around $65-$66K non turbo but LOOOOOOOADED V6 CTS’s. They sold them quick after the end of year incentives came out, both were black, one did have the red interior though. Nice.
My interior is black with the carbon fiber. So it is black on black. Black Diamond paint. I have the V6 and 19 inch wheels. Premium trim level.
In the summer I park my ’66 Mustang coupe in the attached garage and my ’09 Mustang in my pole barn. I really notice how much bulkier the ’09 is when I swap them back in the fall.
The first time I took my son in law for a ride in the ’66 he remarked that it was a car you can actually see out of.
I have noticed the same thing. Is it me getting older? I liken it to going back to a familiar place when you were a youngster, like grade school or your grandparents home, now realizing how small that place is. Those old cars seem to be so much lower than I remembered them.
Current cars make me feel like a kid again… but not in such a good way. Height is the goal, as most vehicles have put on elevator shoes. I thought I’d long outgrown the days when I had to get a stepladder to wax the roof, but once again, I do.
The old Caddy’s trademark was length and width. He who casts a bigger shadow on the pavement wins! As I once heard a comedian put it, that feels safe, “because if I hit anything, it happens way out there.” That’s the intuitive sense of “crush space,” but its promise was unfulfilled due to the lousy design of dashboards, steering columns, frame rails, etc. I suppose that today’s SUV & CUV buyers feel the same way about their vehicles; any collision impact would happen “down there.”
What I notice after I marvel at the Caddy’s vast, flat expanses of trunk and hood is how tight the passenger compartment seems. Today’s designers try to maximize usable interior space, but that obviously wasn’t a concern then. It reminds me of s mall suburban home on a large lot, surrounded by acre as of grass. That’s the USA, folks, before “urban” became a marketable word.
Great point. These modern two story homes you see on small lots built out to the property lines and with zero setback look kind of big, compared to say a much larger home sitting on some acreage.
…and if you live in one of them, just wait until you and your next-door neighbor have a party on the same night. A lot of these suburbs have the houses crammed together as if the land was expensive downtown real estate. One-car garage, driveway too short to park another car….
Paul is spot-on. The only way old “boats” are big is in overall length and turning circle. Otherwise, they’re low and delicate… and not even that heavy, either. Today’s equivalents are reinforced-concrete bunkers on stilts.
I will take this opportunity to complain about the turning circle of older cars. It drives me crazy that my ’67 Imperial (which is rwd, has a spacious engine bay, and a wheelbase only 7″ longer than a modern 300) needs four lanes for a u-turn.
Oh, man, you’ve got a ’67 Imperial AND a modern 300? I am impressed.
not all boats have huge turning circles. My 68 Electra has a tighter turning radius than my 95 Pathfinder and its not even close. In fact passengers often comment in amazment whne I bust U turns
Definitely long and low versus tall and thick. My ’97 Crown Vic, though of the modern era (sort of) is still styled in the old-school long and low idiom. And I notice this in parking lots–while I can almost always find my car by looking for the tail sticking out farther than most of the row, if I look at beltline and roof height they’re much lower than even modern compacts. My wife’s Forte Koup is taller than the Vic, for example.
Length still counts though. I have to pass up a lot of perfectly good parallel parking spaces because the CV is too long to fit!
I noticed the same with my 1980 Caprice, it sits down and low when parked next to shorter and taller new cars like an alligator in between cows.
Yes, everyone says it’s a huge boat. But it sits on a 114 inch wheelbase, the same as a 49 Ford and 1.5 inches shorter than a 62 Fairlane.
Same with my Cougar, 200″ long, 113″ wheelbase, pretty much right sized, but people still refer to it as one of those “Big Cats”. Did they miss the 70s? or are the only Cougars in their memory banks those rebadged Probes from 99-02?
I often buy or sell parts on Mustang sites and a lot of people I’ve dealt with have a 05+ mustang and when I park my Cougar nearby them it looks tiny! The Mustang is shorter but my goodness that height is much more imposing!
What could be so confusing is, thinking about what it looks like when a Plymouth volare, M-Body Chrysler Fifth Avenue, Fox-body Lincoln Continental, Lincoln MKZ and a Chevrolet Cruze are parked together. Volare is the biggest compact car while with different front and rear clips it became the smallest full size car, it’s a similar idea from fox continental. And new MKZ is sort of chubby even though it’s not long neither wide, but it’s tall. And Cruze is near as chubby too. By compare Chrysler F-Body and M-Body looks entirely skinny, and it looks funny how different a formal big car like front clip works
But not so many cars nowadays are even as wide as F-Body though.
“…But not so many cars nowadays are even as wide as F-Body though.”
However, many nominally smaller ones are MUCH heavier. So much for fuel efficiency; throw away in avoirdupois what has been gained in thriftier engines.
If one looks at the Cavalier from the mid 80’s (about 25 to 27 MPG) and compare with the current Sonic or Cruze (30+), I think things are better. My CTS averaged 27 on a trip to the west coast, while my FWD Seville did get 29 on a similar trip, the Seville wanted premium while the CTS is happy on 87 octane and is AWD.
I think lower drag, better transmission helps the most. Slight boost from the improvement on engines.
But with overdrive they are usually at an affordable range, unless the engine is really big ( 5.8 ford LTD crown Vic ) without overdrive, TorqueFlite returns just acceptable mpg with slant six on smaller cars.
Yes it’s amazing how light a Plymouth volare ( then Fifth Avenue pretending to be big ) is at only 3200lb, despite how heavy the body panels are plus all iron engine. But with 90hp slant six and 3AT, the mpg is just so so around 20 for me ( in town driving in summer. 55-60mph on interstate )
But modern cars are just so narrow. I always like to throw a lot of Haribo, soda and Pringles in the middle of the bench seat on volare sharing it with the passenger ( or, put my hands on cat on seat ) when driving on empty country road. For cars relatively narrow with floor shifter, it feels even more narrow and there is no much space.
I can recall an incident where I came to realize just how big a car actually was…I grew up riding in my Dad’s 1965 Impala 4 door hardtop…which he traded in 1973….I was only 7 when he traded it so I was still short in relation to the car…..In the early 1990’s, a 65 Impala 4 door hardtop was parked at a car show……I was now in my early 30’s and 6 feet tall….but now realized just how big that car was with a long overhang behind the rear wheels….it seemed like the trunk went on forever…..The car seemed bigger than how I remembered it as a youngster.
A Cadillac is not a Cadillac anymore. It is just another expensive eggmobile with no style. The Cadillac name no longer means anything but an expensive price. There is no longer anything distinctive about it. They’ve gone the Lexus route. Sad.
I’m sorry, but I disagree, this is currently the best looking sedan on the market at any price, hell, its probably one of the best looking cars available right now, period.
I don’t know where you’re coming from, but there is 0 “eggmobile” here…..
Yeah, the boring eggmobile image was shed at least 5 or 6 years ago. Cadillacs may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but they are dynamically and esthetically laser sharp today.
“I’m sorry, but I disagree, this is currently the best looking sedan on the market at any price, hell, its probably one of the best looking cars available right now, period.”
YIKES. Sorry, C….but that thing has got to be one of the more hideous looking things you can buy. Granted, in my little world calling something the best looking sedan is the equivalent to the best looking woman at a Wal-Mart after the welfare cards were just recharged. Still, that face looks like a dog that was caught face first in a windtunnel while some brat pulled back on his face to make him look Chinese. The new Cherokee is no better. I do have to admit the ATS coupe is a nice ride. THATS what Id like to see as a version of the Chrysler 300.
Best looking cars on the road: Dodge Challenger closely followed by the Audi RS-5. Cant beat either of those two, and both have been untouchable since introduction. Nothing….NOTHING beats a clean muscular two door coupe.
So you either like the John Candy in a Superman costume Challenger or unsalted mashed potato/same sausage different length Audis….got it.
I actually had to Google and R5S to remind me of what one looked like, its THAT bland and forgettable.
Pardon me if I don’t rush to change my opinion based on your “stunning” choices.
“Pardon me if I don’t rush to change my opinion based on your “stunning” choices.”
Who’s asking you to? This is a car discussion. Opinions being like A-holes and such.
The Pontiac Aztec was hideous. I think the CTS does look better in Black Diamond though.
+1 on the coupe. Too bad there are so few these days.
I think the Cadillac sedans look damn good but I hate the coupe variants of them. They’re just too squashed looking, frankly I think the CTS V coupe has the proportions of a Pinto.
What is that hideous bloated blue thing adjacent to it?
A Toyota Avalon.
I would argue that the modern day successor to the 60’s-70’s Cadillacs is not one of their current cars but an SUV. The Escalade ESV is 224″ long, 130″ wheelbase, 80.5″ wide, 74″ tall and weighs 5795 lb. in 2WD trim.
A 1970 Sedan De Ville is 225″ long, 129.5″ wheelbase, 79.8″ wide, 56.2″ tall and weighs 4900 lb.
So the height and weight are the only significant differences between them. No wonder they still sell like hotcakes 🙂
It’d be nice to see that ’49 Caddy you posted earlier in with this shot…. The ’49 looks pretty big in the picture against the FJ and the other cars on the street. I think that lends some credence to the issue of ‘belt-line’ increase changing perspectives — the 49 sits high and tall, and can compete with modern car girths, while the big move from the late 50s through, what, the early 80’s, was wide and low, and that makes ’em look smaller.
I remember noting that my ’64 Dodge Dart 4-dr sedan was just about the longest daily driver around in 1986. Longer than the Caprice, Crown Vic, maybe it was even with the ’80s Jag Vanden Plas….
But when I parked the Dart next to a similarly-aged Caddy, Lincoln, or Chrysler, the Dart was sure looked like a small car!
The old American style cars do seem sleeker to me, but not smaller; rather, the new cars just look ungainly with their stubby proportions and puffiness. The old ones look designed and bold and secure in their size. The new ones look like certain animals in the defensive posture. I don’t know if that says something about us today.
Actually re. the criticism of the big old cars having bad turning radii made me chuckle, that’s one of the things I always liked about them, they force everyone else into a submissive position; “I will now sweep leftward with my big hood ornament and chrome cowcatcher bumper. And all oncoming traffic will now stop and await the completion of said turn.”.
So many “I was thinking the same thing” moments reading through the posts, excellent discussion. One thing I will disagree with, at least with regard to the downsized 77+ GM B/C/D bodies, is about the turning circle. Considering the OAL of the car it is super tight, probably tighter than a modern mid-size Japanese sedan with big wheels and FWD. Not Volvo or 190E tight but tight. Rarely have to do a 3-point turn.
The DTS’s turning circle with 18 inch wheels was 44 feet. The FWD Seville was less at over 40 feet. My AWD CTS is 39 feet, with RWD it is 2 feet less. The AWD ATS is 38 feet. The short Escalade is 39, while the big one is 43.
True, they really aren’t bad. My Electra constantly surprises me with how few 3 pointers I need to make and how easy it is to parallel park.