This was the first Curbside Classic, posted ten years ago at the other site. I didn’t really have a clear format yet for CC, or know if it was going to be more than a one-off free-form story. Its commentary is more big-picture economic than a detailed history of this Cadillac. It was written in the depths of the Great Recession, and obviously reflects that, although for all-too many folks, things haven’t really changed for the better.
I failed to identify this properly as a ’72, so the story, which takes place in 1971 is slightly off-kilter with the year of this particular example. I wrote about how and why I started doing Curbside Classics here, five years ago. (Note: prices have been adjusted for 2019)
1971 was a very BIG year for Cadillac, as well as for US workers and me. And in a number of ways, things haven’t been quite the same for any of us since. When this 1971 Coupe DeVille first rolled off the assembly line, it was the biggest ever, a full nineteen feet long and almost seven feet wide. And this generation remains the high-water mark for American cars, in size. The ’71 Caddy was the quintessential land barge; it floated along serenely and optimistically across America on the fresh and un-crowded interstate system, its 7.7-liter V8 slurping a gallon of 39-cent gas every twelve blissfully-isolated miles.
In 1971, right after I turned eighteen, I left home and hitchhiked west, with thirty-five dollars in my pocket. One of my first rides could have been in this very Coupe DeVille. It was on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, in the mountainous western part of the state. The driver was a teenage kid, about my age. He and his girlfriend had borrowed Dad’s new Caddy for a trip to visit a relative. Dad worked in the steel mills of Pittsburgh.
It was the scariest ride of my trip; the freshly-minted driver was utterly unable to keep the big boat in its lane on the winding mountainous stretches. In between attacks of anxiety as the Caddy rolled and wallowed, I pondered why his steelworker father drove a brand new DeVille, while my father, a neurologist, drove a stripper 1968 Dodge Dart?
It’s a question that I’ve wrestled with over the years. Once I got over lambasting my father for his cheapness, the bigger picture answer eventually revealed itself; and the current economic crisis (2009) has brought it into greater clarity and focus.
The years 1971 to 1973 also represented a high water economic mark for American workers. Average hourly wages (inflation adjusted) hit an all-time peak. And a lot of things were cheaper (prices inflation-adjusted to 2019): the median new house: $152K; college tuition: $2,265 per year; healthcare: dirt cheap; pensions: rock-solid designated benefit pensions were the norm; and that new big 1971 Caddy? $34K—just about exactly one half the sticker price of a 2020 CT6 sedan.
We’ve covered Cadillac’s demographic downward slide before, but along with the house, college, health care, and the size of new Caddies, 1971-1973 marked the peak year of affordability for the average worker. For a mere 25% premium over a similarly equipped Chevy Caprice, the “Standard of the World” could be sitting in your driveway. And the emergence of four-year auto loans suddenly made that possible with almost the same monthly payment as a Chevy on the traditional three-year loan. That vaunted Cadillac premium was now “almost free,” thanks to the magic of easy credit.
Of course, the “Standard of the World” wasn’t eponymous anymore. Quality was now at a low water mark (bathtub ring?). Plastic extensively replaced metal on the exterior and interior of the ’71. In fact, the Caddy just wasn’t all that special anymore and had become precariously similar to the Caprice. No wonder profit margins on the ’71 Caddies were outsized too. More than ever, the two were alike, and the markup of the Caddy over the Chevy was almost pure profit.
1945 to 1971 marks America’s exceptional period, when income and purchasing power grew relentlessly, and our standard of living (and cars) was the envy of the world. But since 1971-1973, the costs of housing, college, health care, and new Caddies has far outstripped relative wages. America has been hard pressed to keep up the American Dream.
America’s first solution was to get wifey back in the workforce. That helped, for those that were ready, willing and able (and had a wife, or husband). It actually was a very significant factor in stimulating the economy in the second half of the 70s and the 80s. But it only went so far. So our nation’s Best and Brightest came up with the grand solution: cheap and readily available credit. From the creation of junk bonds, deregulation of the S&L’s and huge government deficits in the eighties, to subprime mortgages and 84-month car loans in the aughts, America would borrow and deficit spend its way to continued prosperity. Or not.
Cadillac sales peaked in the seventies. Eventually, downsizing, declining quality and reliability, chintzy styling, and rising costs killed the golden goose. Now, the whole American financial system and automobile industry is about as torn and tattered as the vinyl roof on this once proud Coupe DeVille.
I eventually figured out why my father drove a slant-six Dart. And those particular genes have come to full expression in me. I’m debt-free. My new cars keep getting cheaper. There’s nothing quite like writing a check for the full price of a car to make you appreciate its real cost. And the true cost of credit.
I hate these Cadillacs. Too strong? perhaps. But the first time I heard the door slam on a 71 big GM car, I wondered what happened to that solid Body-By-Fisher “chunk” that I had grown up with. We were not “Cadillac people”, but “Oldsmobile people”, by and large. However, I had occasional contact with Cadillacs through the 60s to know what they were supposed to feel and sound like. The 71s ruined this. Years later (mid 80s) a friend inherited a 72 Sedan DeVille when his father died. The car was 12 or 13 years old, and the original owner had been a maintenance fanatic who was proud as could be of his first Cadillac. The car was a piece of crap, with something always failing. A loose, shaking structure, cheap trim, just no reason to own one.
I will admit that a 71 or 72 Coupe DeVille (without the vinyl roof, please) was an attractive car, even moreso today when we are no longer used to the scale of these cars. But no thank you. I understand how someone can love the style, the size and the audacity of these but mark it down today: I will never own one of these.
The 1971 GM full-size cars had a pretty shakey structure. The 1973 versions were improved, thanks to the federal safety bumper requirement. The frames and body had to be beefed up to accept the bumpers. They still weren’t as solid as the Fords or the Mopars.
Disagree, Geeber on ’71-’73 Mopars (or any body size Mopar of the 70s) being “more solid” (body wise) than simialr GM cars of this vintage. 1970s era Mopars had a cheesy ass aluminun-can “clunk” when doors shut; windows a-ratllin’ in their (loose) frames. Coupes and hartops; sedans/wagons, not so much.
70s Mopars (all) had a ‘coke-can’ solidity to them. I felt period FoMoCo/GM cars were a lot tighter, although Pop’s ’71 Olds Custom Cruiser with power windows had window-in-the-track rattling problems that couldn’t be fixed – never went away – you just got “used to them”. That sums up American/Canadian car quality of the ’70s. You just “got used to it.”
I disagree on your comments on the Mopars, the fuselage era 69-73 full size were very solid with the unibody construction, the entry level ones weren’t very well optioned but I’d take a 72 Imperial over a 72 Cadillac for technology, horsepower & style.
Imperials are actually banned outright in most demolition derbies these days, since their frame construction throughout it’s years was/is so tough.
The 71’s had the typical ‘1st year bugs’. Also, the long UAW strike hurt quality, since once back to work, GM psuhed to get more cars built.
The louvers on the trunks for ‘flow through ventilation’ were gone for ’72, for example, since they leaked.
I never understood the need to have two luxury coupes in the lineup. Ok, so we have an Eldo for the high end, Toro for near the high end, and the Riviera for… is this getting too much yet? But I get that, each badge gets its own 2-door luxo barge. But two luxo barges for Caddy alone – the Eldo and then the Ville? I just don’t get it… interestingly Cadillac stuck with this approach when Ford clearly had recognized a failure. Ford too had a 2-door Towny alongside the Mark series, which they dropped I believe in the mid-80s to leave just one luxo-barge offering. Was the Ville aimed at a different crowd than the Eldo?
Seems like horrible marketing! But… educate me, please.
Cadillac had offered 2 doors forever. The Coupe DeVille was the name for the 2 door pillarless hardtop introduced in 1949. The Coupe DeVille stayed in the lineup into the 90s. Lincoln, interestingly, dropped the 2 door when the 61 Contentinental came out, and it was not reintroduced until the new 1966 model.
The Eldorado and the Mark series were always smaller, both outside and inside (although still big by today’s standards) than the “regular” Lincoln or Cadillac. These were “personal luxury” cars, mainly for a driver and a front seat passenger. Occasional rear seat use was ok, but these were not bought for normal 4+ passenger use. The rear seat in a Mark was kind of cramped, and I speak from experience.
2 door cars, even big ones, sold a lot more back then than they did later. They were considered sportier, and safer for kids (who were not in carseats). I was always a sucker for a big 2 door. I owned a 64 Imperial Crown Coupe for awhile. Lotsa room in the back, even if a little cramped getting in and out.
I think they offered both the large coupe and the Eldo for so long because they both sold well. IIRC, the coupe de Ville sold as well, if not better than, the sedan de Ville in many years. I would not call this poor marketing at all. It wasn’t until quite a few years later that they dropped the coupe due to declining sales.
Best 60s through 80s GM luxury car steal – Olds 98. Especially the LS. Grab handles, appointments and amenities almost like a Fleetwood.
Caddy management didn’t like that; usually they were complaining about Buick Electras infringing on the “luxury” territory.
The Coupe De Ville was intended/Marketed to a more Conservative & Less Flashy alternative to the Eldorado in years when Both were Offered. The Eldorado was associated with A need to be Seen, Show-off, impress the neighbors, Where as the deVille series was understated elegance… which could concieveably be needed or justified as a business related expense, it use to quietly say, “This person is doing well, Has Made it” … where as The Eldorado was the favorite of NYC pimps to customize in Purple velvet interiors & thick Padded WHITE cabriolet vinyl roofs.
It was actually in my opinion, a brilliant & distinctly different marketing of two generally similar cars. I Think My Choice would be for a 1970 Coupe De Ville as a pleasant car to drive…. 71 Was somehow Much cheapened IMO.
Put another way, The Coupe deVille was Often seen or marketed as the car for M’lady… Madame… Where as the ElDorado was for The Gold Chained crowd, some of whom may Have been into a Hedonistic Or Swinger mindset.
ElDorado was New Money to the more sedate Deville. I was fascinated by the Cadillac line up when I was Growing Up. The one that puzzled me was WHO WOULD BUY A CALAIS….?
I can answer your question. I had an uncle whose parents were elderly and lived in a small town. They bought a 1967 Calais 4 door hardtop. It may be the only 60s Cadillac I ever saw with crank windows, but at least it had air. When they quit driving, my uncle got it and my cousins drove it for years and years. It was the last year of the old 429, and that thing was pretty fast.
Calais took the place of the series 62 beginning in 1965. Calais was the ‘entry level’ Caddy.
A/C I don’t believe was standard on ANY Cadillac until about ’69. Case in point – I grew up in S.F. Bay Area where back then very few people ordered air on ANY car and I distinctly remember seeing 60’s Caddies/Lincolns/Imperials/Olds 98’s, etc. WITHOUT A/C including a ’68 Fleetwood at a Firestone shop in Santa Rosa, circa 1978.
The 62/Calais was the ‘bait’ to get you into the ‘wonderful world of Cadillac’ and for the most part, especially in the 70s, a Caprice/Pontiac Grand Ville was a more opulently trimmed car.
Catchet – Calais is much like today’s Mercedes C class . . . . gets you in the door and gives you the prestige you seek . . . .
I’m late to the party here, but I have to point out that electric windows have been standard in ALL Cadillacs since 1955
I think 1967 was the last year power windows weren’t standard on Cadillac’s entry-level Calais. I’ve got a 1967 GM dealer booklet that shows pictures of many of their offerings and there’s an illustration in said booklet of a ’67 Caddy Calais with visible manual window cranks. If I’d bought a 1967 Cadillac I’d have snagged a Calais simply because power windows weren’t standard. (I have owned a ’67 Lincoln Continental where power windows were). To me it’s just an unnecessary ‘convenience’; how hard it is to roll down a freegin’ window? Power windows are just 1 more $thing$ to deal with when they inevitably malfunction. I’ve got a Cadillac book that states power windows were standard on all 1968 Caddys so in ’68 the Calais was now loaded up.
The CDV was the mainstream coupe, while the Eldo was ‘specialty’. And back then, 2 doors were far more common.
Up until the 80’s, two door cars were extremely popular…The best selling car in America for years was the Cutlass Supreme, two door coupe. Olds had 4 two doors…Cutlass, 88. 98 and Toronado. The same with Buick.
I can still (mentally) hear the solid “ka-chunk” sound of the doors closing on my Mother’s Suburban Status Symbol ’66 Ford Country Sedan station wagon.
That car was carved from a block of iron! Not one squeak, rumble or rattle on that car, new or 5 years later.
General Motors vehicles of the 1970’s sounded loose, limber and willow-y in comparison.
I’m 60, and tall, and fat now, alas. I’ve got two Corvettes, an 04 and an 08, both run like Swiss watches, and I love the styling. But I’ve got a bad neck, and a bad back now. That climbing in and out, and the low posture of the cars – enough already. A couple of years ago, my brother was riding with me in one of them, and said, “This is a nice car. Does it go faster than 33 mph?” Because the fact is, that’s how I drive anymore. I’m a PI lawyer who has seen hundreds of pictures of dead people in cars over the years. I get anxiety on the highway, so I stay off the highway. I faced facts. My dad had an early 70s Caddy sedan when I was in high school. I wanted to drive it to the prom, and he said no. I had to drive the family station wagon, which – it turned out – was a more practical choice anyway. So, I just bought a 34K mile 1972 Coupe de Ville for used Kia money. Blue over blue, and acres of blue leather inside, in perfect condition. Runs like a champ. I’ll likely never drive it over 33 mph, and all I ask of it is that it be cool in that mph range or at times, slightly higher. And to the world full of neophytes that see it, it is awesomely cool. Actually, to the old coots too. It looks fantastic, it cost me next to nothing, and it’s like new. Almost 50 years old, it reminds me of the many, MANY old 60s cars I drove and loved, and was perfectly content with – and I’m good with it. Probably drive it ’til I croak.
At least you won’t get run over on any highway in a ’72 Cadillac land yacht driving only 33 mph. Safe travels in your Coupe de Ville. Cheers.
Could you please leave that Caddy to me in your will?
Just as nice and relevant now as then.
Motor Trend tested a 1971 Caprice against a 1971 Sedan De Ville and ultimately decided that the Caprice was the better value and the Cadillac wasn’t worth it. Other than still being one of those people who wants to be able to say they owned a Cadillac, I’d likely make the same conclusion.
Gee, Dan, you bring up a really hard question. If that was the choice, I might HAVE to take the Cadillac. Another 25% in price, but you would at least get real leather, 500 cubic inches and a colored steering wheel to go with the flimsy structure and the cheap interior.
Motor Trend’s assesment was the two cars felt the same in quality and that the extra “goodies” you got in the Cadillac didn’t justify the price difference. I would be hard pressed to choose but then I’m thinking, light collored Impala/Caprice 350V8, ac blasting, tinted windows rolled up… intimidation right on your bumper. Is that a cop, FBI, blue collar madman? But I’m a little demented… 😛
They also pointed out that you could do a pretty nice retrim on the Caprice’s interior and still walk away with a lot of change from the price difference. As I recall, their road test found that the Cadillac’s extra weight pretty much did for whatever torque advantage the 472 cid engine had over the 454 (the Eldorado was the only Cadillac with the 500 until I think 1975).
Of course, by the same logic, one could say that a loaded Camry V6 XLE is a better deal than a Lexus ES350, which still sells just fine, but the price spread isn’t of the same magnitude.
Truth be told, the 454 was sort of rare for the Chevy, the 350 was standard On the Cadillac however, the 472 was standard.
Dan, you took the words right out of my mouth, as I was going to offer that exact comment! I believe the Caddy cost 5K and the Caprice cost 3.5K.
The only thing I disagree with Paul on this article is: 1945-1971. I’d have to go up to 1972. Why? Specifcally, Sept. 1972 – repeat after me: “Fixed quarter windows”!
One of the mechanics where my brother worked brought a 71 or 72 coupe deville back from the US it was quite a car with all the fruit and a huge V8 engine I got to ride in it and it floated in isolation very well ,wasnt keen on corners, but quiet and fairly fast in a straight line Havent seen many others you dont trip over old Caddys very often here Most Kiwis were struggling to put a new Holden on the drive way never mind a Cad.
Hmmm, I’ve briefly owned a couple of 71-72 Sedan DeVilles, but they were both parts cars to keep my 1969 Cadillac ambulances on the road (both of them are gone now, RIP). The first one had a shorted-out starter, and I got the car basically for free and all I really wanted was the cruise control system off of it. After that I tried to sell it (dirt cheap, I think I was asking $300, this was in 1986, it just needed a $30 starter to run and drive again) by posting ads on the company bulletin board. No takers, it ended up getting hauled off for scrap, but I do specifically remember somebody writing “El Pimpus Maximus” on one of my for-sale flyers!
The second one I purchased for $300 as an engine donor for one of my ambulances (do NOT spray carb cleaner down the intake of a worn-out engine, the carbon buildup on the rings may be the only thing keeping it running!), and I actually drove that one a couple hundred miles before the donor surgery. It was OK, but the leaky heater core was bypassed and I was driving over a mountain pass in November, so I rain-x’d the windshield (hmmm, I now seem to recall that the wipers were inoperative as well) and rain-x anti-fog’d the inside glass, wore a coat and hat and kept the front windows halfway down. Fun times!
And my front wheel almost fell off halfway there, I had forgotten to torque the RF lug nuts on the wheel that I had off to get to the fuel lines on the fuel pump before the trip.
As I recall, it drove OK, the low-compression motor (as opposed to the 10:1 in my 1969) couldn’t even light up the rear tires, but it did its duty and powered the ambulance to its new owner (another cross-state trip).
I’ll have to submit some ambulance road trip stories sometime soon, I’ve got a few of them!
“It was on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, in the mountainous part of the state.”
My favorite place to drive. I take the Mark VII to the mountains every summer, except that I go on I-80 which IIRC is even more fun than the pike (only been on the pike once). I’ve always thought of the VII as essentially, more or less, an 80s Ford boat, and so I’ve always wondered how different the older boats, as well as non-Ford ones, would be. The DeVille here of course is an FWD so that right there must be a huge difference, and of course it is a much bigger car than the Fox Lincoln (power steering though, right Paul?). The Foxy Mark never feels better than flying at 70 mph on those winding mountainous roads, and once you get off the I-80 and into the rollercoaster of the local backroads the real fun begins. Basically, the car is fun at speed, it is only when you’re crawling that the boat dimensions sink in and make themselves known. Sounds like the Detroit boats had undergone a lotta change in 15 years or so…. anyway, I’ve always wondered what it would be like to drive one of those older things… in one of my favorite places in the world.
Assuming that the suspension and steering and the rubber/alignment were all in a new or “like new” restored condition.
Thanks for another great write-up, Paul!
About 1975, my dad, stepmom and 3 siblings were going to Philly to visit grandparents for thanksgiving weekend. Dad had a 72 Mark IV and needed more room, so he swapped for the weekend with a colleague who had a 74 Continental sedan. One of my favorite cars at that time. I was newly licensed, and my dad let me take a shift as we drove east on the Pensy Turnpike. At night, unfamiliar REALLY wide (borrowed) car and new drivers license, what was he thinking? Anyway, I can remember really stressing out trying to keep that big Lincoln between the lines. Fairly narrow lanes on that road, too.
I have driven it many times since, and it is a favorite route of mine. The only car I hated on the drive was the 85 Crown Vic – low power and tall gearing conspired so that I spent a lot of time with the engine screaming in 3 because it could not hold speed up the hills in OD.
Same trans as the VII (AOD). Most of my annual drive is I-80 and then the final hour, usually by night, on local backroads just nw of Pottsville. I have no trouble staying in OD on I-80 but once I’m off the interstate and into the local roads, forget it, I simply shift into D and… yes, stay in 3 with her screaming. The only difference is that the Crown Vic is a lopo, the LSC is a ho, so I imagine the Vic probably has to work a fair bit more. No one has so far mentioned braking, those roads really let you know FOR SURE just what your car’s brakes are worth!! 😀
Did the Caddy have drums all around?
According to the Automotive Mileposts site, front disc brakes were first offered as optional equipment in 1968 on Cadillacs.
You could get them on Eldorados in ’67, but I haven’t seen anything, either contemporary or current, that suggests they were optional on other ’67 Cadillacs. (People keep taking me to task on that point, but nobody yet has shown me any evidence otherwise.) They were standard on Eldorados from 1968, optional on the rest, and standard across the board from 1969.
I had to think long and hard before commenting on this one. Like you, I’d like to keep politics off this site – and I say that as a political junkie. This here, what you’ve built, is a place where we can come together with some of our other passions.
That said…the way to tell what things cost, is not in dollars – which are constantly being devalued with inflation; sometimes at a slow rate, at times a rapid rate. The true test is the Time-Clock test: How many HOURS does one have to work to afford a given item, steak, house or Cadillac?
My primary car is the cheapest Toyota, a Yaris. It was stickered at $14,000. Compare that to the $1799 Corolla of 1971.
Now, I earned $60,000 last year at my last place – that with some significant breaks. I’ve been downsized. That craft, in 1971, paid about $8000 a year. In fairness, I should point out that the guys who are working are working many hours more per year than in 1971…the job, at that time, was a lark. Now it’s the Bataan Death March, with 75-plus hours per week.
Around about that time, my old man built a summer retreat on a lake about a hundred miles from the city…the land, waterfront in a beautiful setting, cost $4000. The “pre-cut” assemble-by-numbers cottage cost him $1500. In settling his estate in 2002, we had the property appraised. $800,000.
The numbers make us look pressed, but in reality, most of us have been (up until the last few years) making much the same in terms of what we could buy.
My mother, who grew up in the Depression, was fond of recalling when gasoline cost a nickel a gallon. True…but the men at the Ford plants were making $5. A DAY!
Work the numbers. In terms of what a Ford worker can buy, he’s about on the same level as he always has been.
There’s been some jockeying around, of course. Professionals make way MORE than they used to…and I’m okay with that. If I need a neurosurgeon, I WANT him to be making money. Because the fact that he does, tells me he’s in demand; that he’s skilled and accomplished. No cut-rate bargain-basement brain surgery for me, thanks.
What’s changed, is our expectations. We now have the idea that a Lexus is our DUE. It’s not…most of the men in the neighborhoods I lived in, didn’t own Cadillacs; couldn’t afford them; didn’t expect they ever would.
In fact my mother’s uncle, a very-successful advertising man, would occasionally visit us – in his Cadillac. In our comfortable suburban neighborhood, full of Chevys and Ramblers and a few Olds and Buick models…that car stood out like…like our Wagoneer stood out. (I’d have loved to hear some of the things said around other dinner tables back then…)
I do agree with your assessment on wives entering the workforce. That did in fact drive down, or hold, wages – it couldn’t help but do otherwise. It’s simple economics: When the supply of something, be it Cadillacs or labor, is increased by over 60 percent, the cost of that thing drops.
It also leads to a less-militant, more pliable workforce. I remember we were on the verge of a strike, in a transit-agency I once worked for. The drivers were 68 percent female; and in spite of the union’s recommendation that we call for a job action, the strike vote was negative.
And the contract, not a favorable one, was rolled over. So it is with a female workforce…pliant; docile. In a hard environment, a man, most men, will take just so much – and then rise up and burn the joint DOWN. Women, on the other hand, will work till they drop dead of exhaustion…it’s why sweatshops were populated with women and children, but not men.
My take on the situation is, that it’s fluid, but not bad, for those blue-collar workers who haven’t lost their work due to obsolescence or outsourcing or changes in the market. We just have a much, much wider variety of things on which to spread our money around on…which is not a bad thing. Some young guy in a skilled craft, who wants to forgo computers and TiVo and cameras and vacations…can still get his luxury car.
Now, our situation this moment is different. Just as a rising tide lifts all boats, so too, right now we’re all headed downward. Some just haven’t realized it yet; don’t think it will affect them or their briar patch.
I totally know what you’re saying. I found my solution a long time ago… I knew (unlike some) that I could never afford my Lexus (not that I like Lexus as a brand, I don’t actually but let’s use that as a figure of speech for “north of 50k”)… so what was I to do? Wait until I’m older and can afford it (if I live that long)? Or settle for what was in my reach, like everyone else?
To hell with “like everyone else,” I said. I went into older cars. Still got my “Lexus”… got to start a bunch of interesting friendships… met people I’d otherwise never meet… got to learn how to work on cars. And therein lies the catch, of course. The true cost of older cars is… time. Not so much the money, really. Mostly it’s the time.
You pretty much have to not be tied up with family and kids to be able to do this. To be able to really make it “feel” like a “Lexus”… as opposed to an old run-down beater, like the one featured in this article. It’s hard to believe that there Caddy once actually was a beautiful high end car parked next to (probably) a beautiful big home.
Beautiful things don’t come cheap. If it’s not money, then it’s the time. In either case, it’s not cheap. So I guess the final question is why get them, then?
Why do we desire beautiful things? Good luck figuring that one out. I’ve stopped making sense a long time ago… I just know that I want them. So? Had to do something about it before it was too late. In the grand scheme of things though, I think that what the beautiful toys do is speak to the true beauty of our society… we all have choices and opportunities. We all can desire something beautiful, and we all can actually find legal ways to have it. It will require sacrifices, but it is attainable. Could we say that the beautiful things represent… the American dream?
What an interesting write-up. Thank you for that.
JustPassinThru, that is a fine comment! In those days, in many places you could hear a dinner conversation – in the summer, the windows were all open, as fewer people had A/C – we sure didn’t!
In 1975, I got my first “real” job earning 11,300/year – in Civil Service, at that. I thought I was on top of the world! More money that my dad ever earned.
So much more I could comment on, but I would just be repeating myself and what you said. But for all the positives back then, many clouds were on the horizon and rumblings were being heard, so no desire ever to go back, fun as it was for me.
Interesting comment, JustPassinThru.
I believe we have to look at one other factor as well – namely, what do you get for your money today, versus what you got 40 years ago.
In 1971, Cadillacs and Lincolns were considered luxurious because they had…power windows, power seats, power door locks, air conditioning and an AM-FM Stereo.
Today, people expect a Focus and a Civic to have all of those features (except possibly for the power seats)! And the Focus and Civic also must have multiple air bags, good crash ratings, anti-lock brakes and the ability to run for 100,000+ miles without a major component failure or any sign of rust. It must not pollute, and the panel fit and paint quality are probably only equaled by a Mercedes or a Rolls-Royce among 1971 cars.
Another factor is that today’s top luxury cars really are much more complicated than a mass-market car. A 1971 Cadillac or Lincoln really wasn’t all that different mechanically from a Chevrolet or a Ford. Their additional complication came from power accessories (which could be ordered on the Chevrolet or Ford). Today a Mercedes S-Class is a much different beast than a garden-variety Ford, Honda or Chevrolet.
This means, of course, that middle-class people cannot afford an S-Class, and even if they did somehow buy one, they would be hard-pressed to maintain it and keep it running, especially as the mileage mounts. This also makes S-Classes poor buys as used cars.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, I can recall people we knew (meaning, they weren’t rich) stretching to own a Cadillac, and many people actively sought second-hand Cadillacs, as they were considered to be a good deal.
Your comment about men versus women in the workplace is interesting as well. I remember reading that, during the bitter strikes of the 1930s, company owners counted on wives pressuring their husbands to return to work. The UAW made it a point to involve spouses, possibly to remove this pressure.
My dad traded in his 1970 Buick Electra 225, which I always thought was the greatest car on earth, for a 1972 Sedan deVille. It was not nearly as nice as the Buick, the engine was not as strong, it jiggled and shook and creaked and moaned and was just flat out bad. I thought it was just my dad’s car being bad but have driven other Cadillacs of this vintage and found out that they all were bad. Too bad because I happen to like the styling on these cars.
Interesting. My dad had a 1971 Electra, and traded it in for a 1973 Sedan de Ville. It was a big deal for him to buy a Cadillac, having grown up very modestly. I was only about 8 at the time, so I can’t reason say that these cars were “good” or not, but I did think the Cadillac was beautiful. Certainly nice, with leather and all, but even then I didn’t think it was far more luxurious than any other big GM car. It also didn’t seem as good as recent Cadillacs of the ’60s.
Hard to tell with a beater like this, but IMO, it’s hard to deny that these cars had wonderful proportions and scale that really doesn’t exist in cars today.
I’m commenting because we had the exact same experience with similar years. We were in Chevrolets (my uncle was a Chevrolet dealer), but had the same experience–our 1970 Kingswood Estate was a solid, beautiful car, whereas our 1973 Caprice Estate did EXACTLY the same thing you just said: “the engine was not as strong, it jiggled and shook and creaked and moaned and was just flat out bad.” I will add: there was twice as much plastic, the seams on the seats (this stuck in my mind) were crooked (as opposed to our ’70); everything was just cheaper and more flimsy. I never liked them and don’t care for the mid-70’s GM’s at all (they got a little Mojo back with their “downsize” in 77).
I’ve bought several new cars — always on the low end of the price scale; I know my limitations. I also won’t buy new anymore. In fact, if I can keep the Iowa winters at bay and the odd rebuilt engine or tranny is available, I may not have to buy at all for the rest of this lifetime.
Laugh and mock all you want, but that scary looking beater probably still runs, and runs well at that. In 1997 I bought a $450 ’76 Sedan deVille that ran like the proverbial top. A new belt, an alignment and a sketchy DIY R134 A/C conversion and I was on my way. It was my daily driver for a couple of years. The body didn’t look quite as bad as that coupe, but it was definitely on the wrong side of presentable. However, the interior was surprisingly good; in fact there was only one small damaged area on the upholstery. I’d be curious to see the interior of that coupe. I have known a lot of 1971-76 Cadillacs over the years and I often found ones with a ratty body but a beautiful interior.
Here is that ’76. It was known as “The HOJ” which stood for Hunk O’Junk.
I added the interior pic for you; its not a very good shot, but yes, the interior is in pretty decent shape, and has leather seats. This car is a runner, but doesn’t move too often,. It’s still there in the same spot 2 1/2 heats after I shot it.
Thanks. Amazing. In fact, that just about duplicates the condition of the HOJ interior except the damage in mine was on the seatback rather than the cushion. My turn . . .
I think The HOJ looks pretty grand. I was just going to tell IOWA how much I loved my $450 , 1986 LeBaron Marc Cross Conv… It was “Stylin” with The crystal hood Ornaments, and Turbo Whirl… But I got 2 years mostly Trouble Free Driving.
My Friends In High Schools parent often had DevIlle’s like these when They were new… Often With White Roofs “how Nuevo Riche” … I hated the cpillar Window on Sedan DeVilles… it Looks so Chevrolet, though I hated them there too.
I called that glorious ’50 Caddy hot rod on the masthead the National Anthem on wheels. This one is the State of the Union.
Comment of the Month Award!
Now for an example of what this car would have looked like new, I give you this link to one of Texas collector Matt Garrett’s 1971 Caddies…
http://www.mcsmk8.com/71-CAD/71-CAD.html
Thank you sb. Wonderful write up on a beautiful car. Enjoyed that.
Fine example, but somewhat of a stripper for a Cadillac; no tilt steering, no cruise control.
My uncle had a 1973 Sedan DeVille hardtop (kind of an oxymoron, eh?) and as a teenager he let me drive it quite often. It was in fact much better to be a passenger in this car. It was huge inside and very comfortable to ride in. Driving it was another matter altogether! I wallowed and heaved at the slightest bump or curve. The structure was so weak that said bumps completely upset the steering, sending it all over the road. It took huge steering corrections to keep it going straight. Uncle spent a fortune on it keeping it running, from front end parts to exhaust systems. Finally, about 1982, he finally gave up on it. He then, get this, an HT4100 Eldorado, which was in every respect even worse than the DeVille.
That Caddy just oozes character. Anybody can get a new paint job, but the weathering and patina is priceless. Is that moss I see on the roof? Gorgeous.
You find degraded appearance on a car appealing? Different strokes, I suppose, but I think it looks like ass.
I would like to share a picture of my second car. I always liked 1970’s Lincolns and Cadillacs and luckily my father had a autobody shop. He came across this 1971 Sedan De Ville, removed the vinyl top, repainted it 1994 Cadillac Crimson Pearl, and gave it to me. I drove it to my senior year of HS and my first years of college (1997-1999) It got ALOT of attention. I had so much fun watching people do a double take when they saw it. It was very reliable and I never noticed that the off white leather interior was chintzy as my parents drove Devilles, Fleetwoods, and Eldorados from the 80’s, so it looked normal to me. Good times.
This is what it looked like when he acquired it for me.
“License To Drive” with Corey Heim & Corey feldman, they drove a 72 Sedan De Ville In Turquoise…
It didn’t fare too well as I recall…
I couldn’t help but notice the late 70’s Corolla parked in front of it. Did you shoot that one too, Paul?
Yes; I did a CC on it as a one-year follow-up to the Caddy:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/03/curbside-classic-1976-toyota-corolla-liftback/
A 72 Emerald Green Coupe deVille with Matching Top & Leather is What my Best Friend Drove 9 months before I could drive…. Man was I jealous of the freedom to drove that boat on 56cent gas…
I loved riding in this car… felt cool & mysteriously important, being whisked around by my friend from a separate private school. When He got a new WHITE Vinyl Top, it looked all the more up to date.
Having driven both this, as Well as a 70 Sedan Deville during the same first 2 years of my driving career, I remember Loving the precise steering and handling that were in abundance with the 70, yet were totally laCking in the cornering of the 72 Devilles…
Looks Wise, I Like The Caprice Front & The Back more than Most years Of Chevrolet, They look closest to Cadillac’s of the same year, as far as desireability.
In 70 the Gap WAS Huge between the cruddy 70 Look of the Impala vs. The Land Barge STERN look of the 70 Cadillacs… Man I’d love the chance to drivbe a 70 Deviile to see if I remember it Better than it was.
I still think I want a Cadillac. What year/Model will it be? I Keep thinking I want A Convertible, or an El Dorado With Moonroof… A Fleetwood Coupe ? What year?
Subject car is a ’71 – ’72 Caddies had horizontal grille bars and for the record, on the ‘welcome’ page of this site; the ’51 series 61 coupe – three speed manual was standard* on the sixty-ones through the ’51 model year; Hydra-Matic was standard beginning on ’52 sixty-one series cars. The sixty-twos and Fleetwoods offered Hydra-Matic as standard equipment in ’49.
Agree that ’71 was the lowering of Caddy standards to increase (sales) volume. if you really wanted something special, who went with the Fleetwood Sixty Special or Brougham from this era.
I’d still take a clean older Caddy – including a Calais or DeVile of this vintage – still!
*Packard – until the Detroit demise in July of ’56 – would and could build to order three speed stick on ANY model – including Carribeans. Technically, Ultramatic was standard on all but the lowliest Clippers beginning in ’53.
I have seen one ’55 Patrician stick-shift in my life (special order). I’ve seen a photo of a stick ’55 Carribean.
It’s a 1972 with a 1971 grille. You can tell by the position of the parking lamps, properly between the headlights on the 1972. In 1971, they were located on the bumper beneath the headlights.
One thing people don’t consider is that the government was involved in the lowering of quality at GM. In the 1960’s GM had more than a 60% market share. The government wanted to break GM up as a monopoly if they gained any more marketmarket share. As a result GM let quality slide. This is what government interference in market place does.
Um, none of what you say is true. The government did not “want to break up GM.”
Apart from “something new/different” was there a reason behind the wide-set headlights?
It was just a styling choice. I remember when they were new and written about in the car magazines. They mention the 1959 Oldsmobile as having this separation. Of course it left room for the parking lights to migrate to from the bumper in 1972
I am impressed by the pictures of this battered 1972 Caddy. I can’t help wondering how it eventually ended up on that street. And if it still runs.
I love these dinosaurs. Always have. Just bought a 1976 Coupe De Ville. Same coulour as Mad Hungarian’s “HOJ” (it’s Innsbruck Blue, right?).
Of course, it hardly fits in my garage. It’s a nightmare to park almost anywhere in Europe. The gas mileage is abysmal.
But so what. The car’s condition is very good and it feels like it can run forever. I have made new friends in my neighborhood and at work. My 8-year-old son feels like the king of the world when I pick him up from school. I have a big smile on my face every time I sit behind the wheel. My wife knows my possible mid-life crisis has already been taken care of.
The 1976 Coupe De Ville makes driving an inherently pleasant thing, because you are sitting in such a great environment: fabulous elbow room and legroom, smell of leather, friendly V8 noise, safe knowledge that all the torque you’ll ever need is at the tip of your big toe.
As a result, these beasts can be fast (500 cubic inches are right there for you), but it is impossible to feel an ounce of agressivity against your fellow drivers.
It is a good thing. European roads are sadly infested with small and middle-range cars (mostly black or dark grey, because it looks more serious) driven by male thirtysomethings who know they’ll never be able to afford a Porsche. They feel genuinely offended that they can’t do 100 mph all the time. They hate the rest of the world (especially you, if you are doing 90 in front of them) for it.
You just can’t behave like that in a barge like the Coupe De Ville. Best of all, you don’t even want to. You are at ease with yourself and the rest of the world. Plus, your lady can sit nicely close to you thanks to that great American-style front seat. Try to do that in an Audi A4.
Big Caddys are good fot the soul. They make trafic and society better. There should be more of them. So there.
My parents bought a used 72 SDV in fall 1975 for $3000, from dad’s friend who had a used car lot in Chicago. After 11 years of wagons, my folks wanted a nice cruiser.
It was great ride, I passed my DL test in it, but by 78 was expensive to maintain as a family car. It had double U joints that needed replacement, compared to single for a ‘normal car’. That and 10 mpg Chicago city driving! [Got 16 once driving in South Dakota!]
While it was nice for awhile to show off to neighbors, we would have been better off getting a ’72 Chevy Impala wagon and maybe a 77-78 afterward, until all of us were older.
And yeah, Caddys became common in the 70’s, many used ones in working class towns kind of diluted presitge. But the 80’s attempts to ‘economize’ the make really hurt Caddy, more.
As a Detroit-iron-obsessed teenager, I got an after-school job to buy a car in this vein and eventually picked up a 1973 Cadillac DeVille (below isn’t mine, but looked identical) in 1998.
That was some car. I couldn’t break curfew because the 472 cid V8’s idle shook the windows in the house and gave my arrival time away. It taught me more than a few lessons about anticipating braking distances, steering before I expected the car to turn, and managing slip angles. I was playing in a band at the time, and recall fitting the full drum kit, keyboard, bass, amplifiers, and music stands in the trunk and back seat, and seating our three-piece across the front bench to get to the gig.
It also taught me the difference between being able to *buy* an old car, and being able to *afford* it. When premium gas hit $2.00/gallon in 1999 (and after several repairs), my income wasn’t cutting it anymore, and I reluctantly sold it. A few months later, it was abandoned in a sketchy neighborhood several miles away. I really hope it didn’t get scrapped.
At the very least, the kid’s father was possibly a foreman or supervisor…
I remember these as rust buckets. They rusted badly. Far more than a 70 back car or 77-79. Why did they rust so badly?
The red ’71 with vinyl removed, posted by npbheights, looks great. Would one have been available like that, in a similar color, when new ?
Click and Clack spoke about the advantages of power windows (for those who don’t think them necessary and/or fitting, in a boat like this); Tom described highway driving and the ability to fine-tune the ventilation, and acoustics, in the passenger compartment “on the fly.” Seriously, though I’ve never owned a car of this size (well, I briefly had a ’65 Chevy convertible) I can’t imagine trying to reach the passenger window crank from the driver’s seat — can you ?
Thanks for the lesson in economics. Very well put, the cost of everything has gone up while salaries still linger. My wife an I bought our first house for roughly double my annual salary back then. Now starter homes (here) are smaller, and at least 5-6X a person of first house buying age’s salary. I love car review shows as well. Look at this Honda Civic! It starts at $24K! What a great buy! Want something more? How about an Accord for $35K! Subaru for $42K! A Honda Minivan for your starting out family? 455K gets you on the road. When I bought my K car to go along with our first house, it was less than half of a year’s salary.
Insofar as this Caddy goes, give me that ’79 (or so) Corolla Hatchback if I could choose between the two.
People my age like to remember when gas was 39 cents a gallon! But we should also note that in today’s dollars, that’s $2.43 or just about the average price of a gallon of gas now! It’s still very cheap in the U.S. vs. what many folks around the world pay for fuel!
It’s funny how time seems to fly, but in the case of Curbside Classics it seems as though it has been 20 years since this post.
CC has become a daily part of my life. This site is full of simply outstanding material.
I would like to thank Paul for his work over the past ten years. I imagine it is a labour of love, and without Paul’s passion and dedication this site would not exist. A big thank you to the other contributors as well.
This is simply one of the best websites on the Internet.