(first posted 12/13/2017) I have been on a streak recently. Regular readers know that I have developed some strong opinions over the years about the cars that were common in my youth. There are those for which I have an irrational love, such as the Studebakers of the 1960s (or the slightly more rational love of the C-body Mopar). There have been others that have been a challenge for me (he said with more than a touch of understatement). Like this one. And they seem to be plopping themselves squarely in my path so that they are impossible to ignore.
As I have either gotten older (or mellowed, take your pick) I have cooled a bit in my distaste for the big General Motors B and C body cars that filled showrooms from 1971 through 1976. At the time these were new I simply hated them. Hate is a word that is thrown around quite casually, but I really did hate them with the zeal that only an opinionated teenager can muster.
I had grown up around GM cars of the 1960s which had all been quite good. Every single one I can recall had been well built, well trimmed for its segment and elegantly styled. I hated these ’70s Cadillacs for the way they failed to keep up the standards of what a Cadillac should be, and hated the “hey everyone, look at me in a Cadillac” attitude that I attributed to their owners.
There was just that built-in Cadillac snobbery by which it could claim to still be “The Standard Of The World” even though that title could no longer be fairly claimed. Just like a person can be good at what he does while still being a jerk, that is how I perceived these Cadillacs. Who bought these because of the way they handled or because of how they drove? Pretty much nobody. People bought them to showboat to the neighbors about how successful they were or out of some slavish, ill-informed belief that “Cadillacs are the best car you can buy”. Which is why the sum total of skills that most Cadillac salesmen needed in the ’70s was “So what color this time, Frank?” And this is why I couldn’t stand Cadillacs.
The final Imperial was more beautiful and the big Lincoln did a much better job of the kind of understated luxury that I considered more fitting for those who could afford them. Isn’t it funny how we can fall into the trap of passing judgment on how others spend their automotive dollars? But passing judgment is what teenagers are good at, so that was what I did.
You all know that most of my distaste for these had to do with their flimsy, juddery structure and their cheaply done interiors. It also bothered me that people still bought them in droves, oblivious to their glaring flaws. I still carry lingering shadows of these opinions, although these things are no longer the automatic disqualifiers that they once were. I have come to admit that from a mechanical standpoint these old GM sleds had a lot to recommend them. And none of these barges had more going for it below decks in the engine room than the Cadillac.
There have been lots who have admitted to not really liking these cars, which would have provided me with some solace had I been able to hear these opinions then. But I sense that most others have joined me in coming around in more recent times. In the ’70s, however, I felt like a lonely voice in the wilderness as these cars sold and sold and sold.
For a couple of summers I worked for a funeral home in Fort Wayne, Indiana. It was a big place and had a large fleet of vehicles. Aside from the obvious funeral coaches (all Cadillacs), there were limos, trucks and sedans. Most of the sedans were Buicks and Cadillacs and I got the full exposure to both sides of the great 1977 divide. There was a 1977 Fleetwood and a 1977 LeSabre (with the most underpowered V6 engine I had ever experienced in a big car) that faced off in the fleet against a 1976 Fleetwood and a 1976 Electra. I got a lot of wheeltime in all of these and developed a pretty good sense of what they did (and did not do) well.
Although the pair of ’77s drove better I preferred driving the ’76s. I didn’t like them (for the reasons stated above) but there was a certain presence to them that the newer downsized cars could never match. They did what big GM cars had always done and done well – comfortably and reliably ferry its driver and passengers to wherever they needed to go, and stylishly.
The ’76 Fleetwood was my favorite of the batch (funny as that may sound coming from me), a silver car with a black vinyl roof and white leather interior. Yes, I griped about its failings (finding it far inferior to the ’78 Lincoln Town Coupe that my father drove) but there was something about the car’s underlying competence that made me feel a little bad about ragging on it all the time. And I will admit it – I felt like a bit of a swell behind the wheel. “Look at me everybody, I’m in a Cadillac!”
Time passed, I finished college and law school and went on with life with nary a ’76 Cadillac in my path. Until this past summer. The car showed up in the driveway of a house in my neighborhood. It was a beautiful car from the street, but I didn’t try to investigate further. It was probably just someone visiting. Besides, I didn’t know these people and . . . it was a ’76 Cadillac.
Fate, however, was not content to leave this situation alone. I was backing out of my driveway on the way to work one morning when the big green Caddy floated its way up my street. I followed behind, wondering if I would ever catch the owner stopped somewhere. He turned into a shopping center, which got my hopes up. Then he headed for another exit. Just as I was preparing to disengage and get to work he pulled into a gas station across the street (a gas station – of course!) and I followed. And there ensued a delightful conversation that took way too long and resulted in some pictures that you see here.
The owner is a self-employed fellow with a young family. He likes old cars but wanted something fairly safe for carting his family around. Yes, he bought this big boy to drive. It was a basically nice car that he bought online and he has done a few things to make it a little more suitable for normal use, like some upholstery work and a little paint touchup here and there. And those always-necessary plastic bumper extensions. But that big 500 cid (8.2 L) Cadillac V8 and the Turbo Hydramatic 400 through which it sends its prodigious torque just do their thing without pique or drama. Which is sort of what Cadillacs are supposed to do.
When I asked what kind of gas mileage he gets out of the big beast (we were in a gas station after all) he just gave me a big ol’ smile and shrugged his shoulders. He is right, of course – it just doesn’t matter. Gas prices are low and if a guy wants to drive something with this kind of presence, you just have to be prepared to suck it up and feed the beast.
Once a fellow gets to a certain age he has seen many a car go through the full life cycle. They begin fresh and shiny in their showrooms, then become the proud possessions of their affluent first owners. Some are kept for a long time but most are traded on another after a few years and the cars become middle-aged appliances that have lost a little of their cachet. Eventually they become cheap beaters in poor neighborhoods that are depended on for getting their owners through to the next paycheck. At least until that big expense hits, then off to the salvage yard. Those Cadillac crests did not grant an exemption to the normal rules of automotive entropy, resulting in their becoming fairly scarce after the mid ’80s and all but extinct a decade later. And then there are the outliers like this one.
After forty years or more it becomes apparent which of those shiny new prestige cars is still capable of doing what it was designed to do, day in and day out, as regular everyday transportation. Every day in 2017 that 500 cubic inch pile of cast iron goodness fires right up and salutes, ready for duty. It then gets to work, blowing unending torque in its wake, torque ably passed along to the pavement through some equally tough downstream components.
When these were new, I hated them because I considered them all flash with little substance. But time has shown me that substance was what these Caddies did really well over the long haul. This big old Cadillac has proven that as a comfortable way to get from here to there and back again, it still has the stuff. Which it continues to garnish with some style for good measure.
Further reading:
Perhaps it’s because, being young and Aussie, I first saw these at around the same time as (or perhaps later than) the ’77+ models. So, these just look just… unnecessarily big in comparison. I imagine it’s different for some people who were around when these were new and then when the ’77s came out.
I’m rarely a fan of pre-downsizing 1970s full-sizers, however I’ve found when I actually see them in the metal, I like them more. For example, the ’76-78 New Yorker is something I disliked until I saw one at a car show. I did see a ’74 Sedan de Ville at a show and found myself admiring its rear end, however these still 1) look too big and 2) look too fussy compared to the relatively graceful ’71-72 models.
I feel like the “standard-sized” domestics of the late 50s and 60s broadly fit into two categories in my mind: completely innocuous and forgettable, or bounding with presence and yet relatively sleek. But the 70s full-sizers too often look blocky and overwrought, with too much visual bulk. This is one of them. And the ’76 frontend design looked so much better on the downsized ’77s…
I’d have to say the ’77-79 DeVille/Fleetwood is one of my favourite full-sized Cadillac designs of all time, so I just can’t get behind these early ones. A contemporary Continental, however? Sign me up! So stately, so much presence, visual bulk but in an elegant, imposing way. Those are some gorgeous luxury domestics…
Will, I think you are right about how it was important to see this and the following series in order. You remind me of a point that I neglected – it was apparent to me at the time that Cadillac stylists were running out of ideas on what to do with this one. Six years was a long time back then, and it seemed that most of the flavor of this design had dissipated by 1976.
The side character lines at the back had been scrubbed out so that instead of meeting at that point (which you could tell the body lines still wanted to do) they just sort of erased all character at the back. And those taillights – was there any more of a generic afterthought of a way to put taillights onto the back of a car?
Still, this car (even after being watered down and flattened out everywhere) still had a presence that the newer, smaller car lacked, especially in its 1977-79 version.
The original fender contours on the ’71, both front and back, were an obvious tribute to the iconic ’59s. Somebody at Cadillac evidently wanted those references scrubbed by the middle of the decade.
Taillights? What about the Imperials with the struck-on taillights? You know- the 50s ones that look like somebody noticed & stuck JCWhitney lights on it post-production.
You must be referring to the tailights sitting on top of the rear fenders of the ’55 – ’56 Imperials. Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder and many feel these tailights were the pinnacle of style and exclusiveness.
Those so called “tacked on” Imperial taillights of the mid 50s are absolutely beautiful! They were designed to give an “old world” presence in an increasingly “high tech” era. The 1956 Imperial and DeSoto are among the best styled American cars of the era, IMHO.
I’m hearing you about the size W as a fellow anyipodeian. But, to me, these were the cars driven by the villians in films. Even English films such as Get Carter. Here the crooks had a 70s Cadillac (and a Mark 2 Jaguar as well) – bad guys are always the coolest. After all, Michael Caine only had a Cortina.
Being born in 1972, this generation of Cadillac is what automatically springs to mind upon hearing the brand name. The subsequent, downsized Fleetwood (later Brougham) comes in at a close second.
Perhaps due to my timing, I’ve never found these to be anything other than a mental template of what is a Cadillac. They were just what a Cadillac was – I knew no different. With the advantage of several years having passed, it’s easy to see some disadvantages (primarily size and thirst) but there is something distinct about these, and it’s a good distinct. The terrific mechanicals only add to its allure to this Gen X’er.
Plus, it’s always nice to see a car in its natural habitat.
William Stopford, for the most part, mirrors my opinion on full-sized cars built from 1970-1977/78. Usually sedans are termed three box vehicles, but these always struck me as two box vehicles, a huge box with a tiny box on top of the larger box.
Looking at that ad for Cadillac from 1976, I am drawn to the Seville. Having driven a 77 Nova, I know that a Seville has a tight fitting interior. But as someone who rarely has passengers in my car the Seville is still a bit big outside.
So cool that this car is being beautifully maintained and used as a daily driver. It does indeed have presence.
The problem, as I see it, is that this generation of Cadillac is when “presence” became a substitute for genuine quality. Size became too much, materials became inferior. It was a big, fat, complacent car.
That’s why I prefer the ’77 to ’79–it felt fresh and was a very bold move for Cadillac to “shrink.” But as smaller “big” American luxury cars went, the first downsized Cadillacs were by far the best of the bunch. “Less is more” in Cadillac’s case helped the brand regain some legitimacy as a leader once again, albeit short-lived.
Cadillac of course still does big, fat and complacent really well. The Escalade couldn’t be any lazier an attempt to extract extra margin from a Chevy, yet it is one of the brand’s best sellers. So for buyers in the 1970s (or today) wanting to check the box that says “I spent LOTS of unneeded money because I can, not because it make any sense,” Cadillac filled the bill.
‘m a couple of years older then Jason, so I also think in some way the ’71-’76 GMs are just what cars are supposed to look like.
On the other hand it occurs to me, how little real experience I have with them. My grandparents and 3 or 4 Aunts and Uncles had a variety of Olds, Buicks, & Cadillacs, but all of them were replace by the time I was 8 or 9.
I did take driver training in 1985 in a 10 year old Olds 98, so I have a few hours behind the wheel. I’m sure it had all the flaws & virtues that JPC mentions, but at the time I had so little to compare it to that I really don’t have a solid opinion. I do recall liking it much better than my families manual steering Farimont.
As I think about it with the exception of one trip to the store in my Uncle’s 20 year old Corvair, I’m not sure I have ever ridden in any Chevy or Pontiac built before 1977.
Nice piece! I think the 71-76 GM full-sizers are the high-water mark of the big car.
Wretched excess–because we (the USA) can!
The Caddy was the biggest of the big for sure–but my favorites were the ’72 Chevrolet, followed by a 72 Olds 98.
I do have one comment though: JP and others have commented on the 71-76’s “cheaply built interiors”.
Why do you feel that why? I’m curious.
While I’m not an authority, and I like 65-68 GM full-sizers, my recollection growing up in the 1970s, as well as what I’ve seen living near Woodward when the old cars come out to play in the summer, is that the 71-76 GM cars had plusher, richer looking interiors than the 65-71.
And I’d say the same was true of the mid-size cars (Colonades nicer than 68-72, and much nicer than 64-67 midsize) and Novas.
Great piece on a great car (now 40 years later!), thanks
I will agree, Tom, that these cars (Cadillacs and all of the big GM B and C bodies) did a very nice job on the seats. But for the rest of the interiors, not so much.
The attached picture of a door panel is from an Eldorado, but the others were very much like this. Does that woodgrain in that contour and shape look like wood? To me it looked like the contact paper you could buy at K mart. That puffy insert that was in the middle of the fake wood? That vinyl skin was so thin and fragile that the first push on it in cold weather would crack it. The lower part of the panel that was another piece of expanded foam under a thin vinyl skin just screamed “CHEAP” to me. The dash, the plastic buttons and controls everywhere, it all looked fake.
Everyone was cutting back on interior quality in the 70s, but Cadillac seemed to fall farther and faster than the others.
In my experience, another factor that made the interior of a 70s car look cheap was the assembly quality on many of them….though perhaps not GM cars?
I remember glove box doors that didn’t line up with the surrounding parts, panel gaps that you could stick a finger into, and on even new Chrysler products, door and instrument panels made up from several plastic panels NONE of which matched the panels adjacent to them in color. (A friend’s new 75 Fury had an interior with panels in 5 different shades of light brown.)
Probably the worst offender was AMC with the Hornet/Gremlin dash. It was composed of a multitude of ill-fitting, flimsy plastic panels that barely lined up even when new. Don’t even get me started on the chintzy, cheap standard seats that had less support than a park bench. Yeah these were economy cars, but come on. (Both items were much improved when the Hornet morphed into the Concord.)
Not a fan of the 1970s interiors but earlier caddys have some sins too- like the original eldorado with what must be one of the ugliest steering wheels ever made and with a rather vanilla looking interior
My favourite American cars were built in the 60s; the 62 Lincoln being the high point for me.
Large US cars are a rare sight in the UK but in the early 80s I had a wealthy Arabian mate who bought loads of them from the 60s and 70s. Spent a quite a few thousand miles driving and riding in a 78 Fleetwood though I thought the 78 Chevy Caprice was a better car, I owned and restored a 75 Eldorado convertible.
These big cars waft and glide along so unstressed they feel they can do it forever, I have experienced that sensation in few cars, the Jag XJS and Jensen Interceptor are others but at much higher speed, it is a sensation that endears a car to me and makes me forgive a few faults, comparable year Mercedes do not give that feeling though they excel in other areas
Like the author I preferred the Lincoln but the full sized 76 Cadillac sedan in the advert does look very elegant even today; but I have to agree with author about cheaply made interiors.
They may have been plush but the quality was lacking, I took my 75 Eldorado interior out to repair it and was most disappointed with the quality for what was supposed to be a luxury car
The Cad may have had more electrical gadgets but I feel justified in saying that a 75 British built Ford Granada Ghia at least equalled the quality of construction of the interior of the Cadillac and it was not a patch on Rovers and Jags, or similar year European BMW, Audi, Volvos which cost less over here.
The prettiest of those big ’71 to ’76 GMs were the ’71 Buicks, particularly the B bodies – LeSabres and Centurions. The rounded lines and forms of those cars were perfect on that big soft body.
Interesting juxtaposition – a Caddy with a Budget truck in the background! Owners of these back in the day certainly had the cash to spare to buy and drive these. A friend of mine had a 66 Caddy SDV just after I got my driver’s license, and I practically begged him to let me take it around the block. No luck. I did get some rides in it though, and I think the term, ‘living room on wheels’ was invented to suit these luxo barges.
My dislike of GM was fostered by others of my associates who had GMs and never stopped talking about how great the company was, and their cars. OK so you got a Cutlass – now leave the rest of us alone already. Chevy owners seemed to be the exception – just went about their business without the continued touting of the supposed greatness of GM. In recent years I have come to enjoy and appreciate the styling of many GM cars that I could not stand the sight of back in the day. Early 70s Cutlasses are the best example of this I can think of. I thought they were sinister and ugly back then, but now I’d enjoy seeing one at a car show.
JP, not only have you demonstrated in this fine piece how you have come around to liking these, but you’ve made me a believer, as well!
The downsized ’77s were new when I was a toddler, so by 1980 or so, Cadillacs like this one were usually on their second owner – and very out of step with the dawn of the eco-minded ’80s. A late ’70s CDV would be my ultimate Cadillac pick, but I have come to appreciate these. Thanks for this one!
I don’t know – It looks spectacular on that circular driveway, but all of the 71 – 76 Caddy’s are still oversized barges.
In high school, a friend’s parents always got a new Sedan De Ville for mom and dad always got a new Lincoln Mark Series every year. So the plan became that I would park my old 67 Pontiac about a block away, and walk to his house to hit the parties on Friday nights. He thought it made a better impression to hit the parties in one of his folks vehicles, rather than my (then 7 year old Catalina Convertible) as we arrived. I never really got that, as we were both 17 year olds at the time, what are the odds he’d own such metal?
Anyway, poor kid couldn’t hold his drink and I generally ended up driving either of the beasts home. I hated both of them equally, isolated mushy rides that were terrible. And fitting those barges from some of the parties on the narrow streets of Oak Park, or any of the Chicago ‘Burbs was always derriere puckering, especially when you met oncoming traffic! Terrible sight lines on both, although the Mark had the sharp front fender lines, it had almost no rear visibility. Driving either barge was rather sketchy. Generally not the purpose of these beasts nor were we the targeted market for either, but my gawd, even the Pontiac handled those situations better, except maybe the rearward visibility (Of course, with the top up).
After owning a 71 Chevy Impala Convertible, I realized that GM had really screwed upon the 71 – 76 B and C platforms! The interiors were terrible and there ride was nauseating. I even owned a 68 Caddy Calais four door hardtop, and that handled and rode far better, in my humble opinion.
Ah well, I inherited the gadfly gene from my dad and I am proud of it.
In 1977, I was working in the shop of a local Texaco station when a friend of the owner drove in with his new purchase, a ’76 Coupe de Ville in this color scheme. Jim, as we knew him, was a locomotive engineer for the RF&P. Morgan, the owner, looked the Cadillac over and said, “Boy, it’s a big ‘un”. Jim just grunted and replied, “I drive trains all week. It’s a small car to me.”
Pretty car, but like you, I didn’t much like these Cadillacs at the time. The passage of forty years lends perspective.
I love any Cadillac with a Big Block Cadillac engine. However given the overall cheapness of Cadillac in the 70s I would not have wanted one new.
One ride in the back seat of my buddies parents 73 (?) Sedan DeVille taught me instant respect and everything I ever needed to know about these giant, powerful, floating clouds. Feeling all 472 cu in of power without actually feeling or hearing that engine just amazed me. I, too was a very opinionated teen at the time, but that one ride made me appreciate what Caddy did best.
2 things to note here from a car/Cadillac-obsessed guy 🙂
The wrap-around cornering/marker lamps are 1976, but at quick glance, appear as 1975 because the dual horizontal raised strips (which designate a ’76), have with wear & time, lost the ‘painted on’ sliver-chrome finish. look closely and you can barely see them therein the plastic, sans finish.
Back then, Cadillac still used some serious solid real rubber bumper strips. I have them on my Gen1 Seville…
Anyhow, here, someone interestingly went to the trouble to paint the rub strips to match the car. It’s obvious as a hack because 1, they weren’t on this model & when Cadillac did them, they still had a bright white strip in the center of the colored rubber.
Color-keyed rub strips def were not offered from factory this way except for one instance. The 1978/’79 Seville Elegante’ package had them standard from factory (as seen in attached picture)
So nice to see a ’76 Cadillac still on the road and a DD to boot 🙂
The Lincoln might have been the better car overall, but I’ve always hated the styling of the ’75 -’79 Lincolns – boxy and loaded with gingerbread and filigree. For example, look at the ornate reflector panel between the taillights. The Cadillac is cleaner and looks more unitized.
This one would better have been titled The Redemption of JP Cavanaugh!
Oh, I’m not completely redeemed yet. 🙂
Our paths on these are quite similar. Who can hate this now?
I lked these Caddys but yes they were far too big and ponderous. The opera windows in the C-panels did help to lighten them visually a lot and I prefer the ’75-’76 models with this roof line. The big Lincolns were more square and in the right colours (dark reds, dark blues) looked just as nice to my eye, in a different way. And there’s no comparing those pillow-tufted Lincoln seats!
I was 12 yrs old in 1976 but if I’d been old enough and rich enough, I probably would have avoided both big cars and just bought a Seville instead. It rather stole the thunder from big Caddys I think.
These are really nice “cruisers” that can picked up cheaply for someone looking for entry into the old car hobby. My ’75 shown below
The ’76
Great looking Caddys, Dean! Your cars show the original style hood ornament where today’s featured car shows a replacement in the newer style (with the wreath). I can tell that my rehabilitation is still a work in progress when I see one of these from the front. The Cadillac crest hood ornament right over the Cadillac crest (a proper one with the big V under it) on the leading edge of the hood always hit me as the essence of Cadillac in the 70s. Everytime I see that double dose of Cadillac jewelry on the hood I hear the voice of Foghorn Leghorn saying “It’s a Cadillac son, a Cadillac, ahhh say!” 🙂
Thanks, J.P., for the kind words. One of the oddities noted was that the interior fittings seemed more durable on the sedans than the equivalent Eldorado’s and CDV’s. Perhaps the greater door lengths led to more plastic cracking? I:m sure that things were worse in the Southern US with greater heat exposure. I was fortunate that the interiors on mine were well preserved.
Lots of room to stretch..
Very nice, Dean. Looking at this picture, my Mrs. would never let me get one of these since the HVAC control is way over on the driver’s left. 🙂
And in a 1969-70 Ford LTD, the radio controls are way to the driver’s left side of the dashboard. That’s even more extreme.
Very nice, Dean. I wonder if the higher rate of cracking door panels on 2 doors is due to the much heavier weight of those doors. My memory is that it sometimes took a pretty good shove from inside to push those big doors open, so maybe there was more pushing on the panels of the 2 door cars.
Looking at this picture, my Mrs. would never let me get one of these since the HVAC control is way over on the driver’s left. 🙂
The ’69 takes the control of accessories for the driver only to a new height. What would happen if you swatted little fingers that were trying to adjust the climate control or radio? Would that be too Grinch-like?
Hi Dean (and everyone), thought I’d throw this in too since discussed here.
Same era Cadillac, Gen1 Seville built from 1975-1979 with same materials used in all the other models, yet…1979 build and I dont have one crack, tear or broken piece on this interior. And its a Midwest car from day 1 with alot of drastic temp change exposure over 39 yrs.
Honestly I thought the Seville had the best interior of any Cadillac of the 70s. I worked with a guy in the mid 80s who was driving the 77 Seville he had purchased used from his father. The materials quality seemed much higher than what was in the bigger Cads. I think that beginning with the 77 big Cadillacs, they took their cues from that Seville because their interiors became much nicer too. The stitched upper door panels are just so much more evocative of quality than those pieces in the pre-77 big cars. Cadillac still used plastic chrome and still used lots of expanded foam in the door panels, but they used those materials in much better ways, giving a much better experience to the driver and passengers. Your Seville interior reminds me a lot of the interior of my old 89 Cadillac Brougham, right down to the color.
JP, thanks for your reply/input. I really enjoy reading all this type stuff on CC so much (and read the posts/reply threads again, again & again 🙂
Anyhow, when I was looking for one yrs back, I personally did not like the 76/77 interior as much with all the narrow, vertical top to bottom pleats/lines everywhere. But, the interior door-panel & seat resign for 78/79 really took an already nice interior up to the next level. I think you’re right about the ’77-79 big car interior too.
as far as the Saddle interior, well… that pulled me in. big-time!
I always liked this dash back in the day, and still do alot. BTW also always thought the striped velour your’s has was really sharp.
I realize alot of quality materials etc had been given up from the mid-late ’60s models dash, but this is one (still) good looking, clean and uniquely Cadillac design.
My Mom had the 71-73 style dash in a SDV and an Eldo… as I got older, I always thought that particular dash did not suit Cadillac, to me one of the weakest in Cadillac decades… just looks so cheap & very Chevrolet. But when our family friend got his new ’74 Fleetwood, I loved the new dashboard right off, thinking it looked so high-end and modern, proper for a Cadillac again.
I also think Cadillac did the right thing to keep continuity with the brand and miniaturize it for the all new Seville for the Spring of ’75
Both of Dean’s standup hood ornaments are dealer-installed, not uncommon. The factory ’75-6 de Ville SHO is a see-through crest outline without wreath, and the Vee and colored crest on the prow of the hood would not appear. The de Ville didn’t get the wreath until ’85, but they did get a solid, colored crest SHO in ’78, probably standard.
The ’76 cleaned up from the above picture taken in 2011
Interior
A great article! My family had a 1976 Oldsmobile Delta 88 Royale hardtop sedan, and I remember the lack of body rigidity. It wasn’t uncommon to drive down a country road and see the front fenders and hood flapping like the wings of jet. The drive train, however, was bulletproof.
These Cadillacs have been a staple at the Hershey AACA show and Carlisle Events car corrals for many years, so my feelings about them remain mixed. For me, they never really “went away.”
They are certainly imposing, and deftly styled, given their size. But things like the chintzy fake wood on the upper interior door panels, and the slapdash look of the rubber filler panels around the taillights and vertical bumper guards, detract from any aura of quality construction.
And those are the ones that have been maintained in mint condition. Park a mint 1971-76 Cadillac next a mint example from 1970 or earlier, and the decline in build quality and materials is immediately apparent.
As these aged and became used cars in the early 1980s, the vertical rubber bumper panels inevitably warped and became discolored. Rust around the trim dividing the vinyl roof from the sheet metal was also a common sight. They didn’t last any longer than a garden-variety, full-size Chevrolet. The contemporary Lincolns simply looked better built, and with better quality materials.
These cars were riding on laurels won long before, and that would quickly catch up with Cadillac (and GM as a whole). But I’m glad that this owner is enjoying his example.
My direct exposure to anything remotely related to these cars is a few miles behind the wheel of a ’75 or ’76 Caprice. At the time, both the Lincoln and Cadillac seemed like tacky, bloated barges, and the Chevy seemed only slightly less tacky and bloated. And, for context, at the time I found the then-new “downsized” B body very appealing, and still do. But now, I think the Caddy has a certain presence while the Lincoln still looks like bloated barge. And you gotta admit … 500 cubic inches is a great number. All that said, it’s great to see all the different perspectives here on CC.
I am part of the tail end of the Boomer generation and this is usually the image I conjure up when someone mentions the word, ‘Cadillac’. Similar to many domestic cars that were introduced in the early 1970s, these tended to age very quickly and by the time they were five years old or so seemed very dated and passé. While my opinion of this generation of B and C-bodies has softened with time (perhaps because I’ve reached the age of the typical 1970s C-body buyer and can understand better the appeal of a wallowing highway cruiser), I’d rather have 1977-79 C-body (make mine an Electra with Buick’s road wheels in navy blue and no vinyl top) as a more modern take on the 1976 SDV’s undeniable virtues of comfort, style, and presence.
While not my favorite era of the Cadillac’s but you have a really nice car there, I always liked 60’s/70’s cars with a darker shade of green with a white/creme color top, when it comes to the 1970’s Cadillac’s I would prefer a 1970 (last of the high compression models) or a 1977-79 downsized model.
A few years ago, I had the pleasure of test driving a “Dunbarton Green” (aqua) 1976 Coupe DeVille with 90,000 miles. Driving around with that 500 cube Cadillac V8 was an incredible feeling; it’s by far the smoothest running engine I’ve encountered. I test drove it in the rain and the owner let me do some fairly strong braking tests at speed and I will say, it stopped and handled pretty well for such a big oaf. The contact paper look of the dash was a bit of a turnoff, however. But the leather was impeccable and smelled great. I ended up not buying the car as (a) I decided I wanted a 4 door hardtop and (b) in addition to the aqua exterior, which I loved, the inside was aqua with aqua leather. It was just a little bit too much green and, in a Coupe, felt like Kermit the Frog’s cave on wheels.
My grandfather was one of those self-made guys who, for a while beginning in 1960, bought a new Cadillac every other year exactly because of the popular view that they were the car a successful person should buy. Also, likely, because he was a GM guy who had worked his way up the Sloan ladder; rolling in a Pontiac in the early 40s and an Olds 88 in the mid 1950s. However, I know that, for a period in the early and mid 70s, he bought a Lincoln Continental or two. He was willing to take brand loyalty only so far, and I am pretty sure the cheapo interiors on these and the reviews, which he definitely was the type to read, probably convinced him that the Lincoln was the better car for the money. I think the same logic sent him back to Cadillac in the late 70s and to Mercury Grand Marquis in the early 80s when Cadillacs were starting to get bad reviews and Consumer Reports was giving the GrandMa good marks.
I have a baby blue 1975 Olds Ninety Eight Regency that I’m preparing a MY CC on. It has many of the same positives and shortcomings the DeVille here has–some definite contact paper woodgrain (although the wood on the door pulls in the Olds is nice and at least looks and feels real) and some cheap door vinyl, misaligned exterior trim, the on and off mysterious rattles. And the Olds 455 V8 is not quite as smooth or isolated from the driver as the Cadillac 500, even if it does have that great, unique exhaust note (and is still very quiet from within the car). Same horsepower rating and slightly less torque. But the mechanicals are definitely solid. It returns around 14 mpg in steady driving, less in hillier terrain, 10 or 11 around town.
Now that I have the Olds, I don’t think I would buy one of these since I doubt it would be that much different, but if I get the space, I would definitely like a ’75-’79 Lincoln to keep it company.
I commented below about how I felt that the big bumper versions of this Cadillac had kind of jumped the shark in its styling, like the designers couldn’t figure out where to go next but were unwilling to screw up too much of what was there. I felt that guys in the Olds and Buick studios were much more successful in updating the supersized C body for its last couple of years. I think the Olds is no worse than the early 70s versions and I think that the Buick was actually improved. I look forward to reading about your Olds!
I agree with you. It’s arguable that the 1975-76 Ninety Eight kind of “took” what shoulda/coulda/woulda been plausible Cadillac taillights; I know I’m not the first one here to comment that they resemble the mid 60s Cadillac taillights. I like the later Buicks a lot too and would have been just as pleased to have one of them. I was prepared to buy whatever reasonably priced, mechanically/cosmetically decent baby blue DeVille-Electra-Ninety Eight I encountered first; by chance it was the Olds.
I look forward to sharing, just trying to get some decent pictures in curbside guise. I keep it in a garage, but when it’s in New York, I sometimes park it on the street if it’s just in for a day or two and the weather isn’t bad.
I shall look forward to reading your CC write-up of your big beastie of a ’70s Oldsmobile.
Some folks don’t like big cars of the 1960s and ’70s. I fancy them. If these land yachts could talk I imagine they’d say: “Yeah, we’re big and gas stations are our second home . . . so what of it? We need not justify our existence even though there’s little reason a passenger car ~needs~ to be this big. The fact that we exist is a good enough reason for you to like us!” 😀
I’ve long been conflicted about whether to add one of these to my little fleet of classics. I love their huge presence, but their boldness is betrayed by the ticky-tacky interior.
Among these B/C bodies, my favorite is the Fleetwood, of course. If I can find a reasonably priced one with an outré upholstery option (Talisman or paisley), I’d probably pull the trigger. It would certainly compensate for the Chevy-grade “wood” trim.
Since it’s on my mind now, I’ll pose a question: is it worthwhile to find a fuel-injected version? I like the idea of better driveability, but I suspect that this rare option is harder to keep running than a normal carb engine.
I would stick to a carb, unless you are technical savvy or have knowledgeable go-to people, Fairly cheap to rebuild and parts will always be available as the same carbs were used on a variety of GM vehicles, but choose someone that is gifted at carb set-up as this makes all the difference. My buddy, who wrenched on these back in the day, said the FI system was complex and expensive- I recall him mentioned fuel injectors at $110 a pop x 8 back in the eighties, before labour. For recreational driving, there wouldn’t be much difference in operation.
About the interior–I wouldn’t make that a factor at this point. That’s a factor if you’re buying new in 1975 with 1975 money, or writing a piece on how GM lost it’s pull. Now, it’s just “what they used at the time” and for me, at least, it’s hard to sit in a 43 year old luxury car and say “my enjoyment of this car is seriously compromised by its cheap-looking dashboard.” I think I would feel differently if it were a Chevette, because that was both cheap AND uncomfortable, but it’s not. If you get all the climate control stuff working, one of these is still going to be a really nice car to ride around in, fake wood or not.
And yeah. Stick to the carb. These generally drive really nicely unless the carb is seriously out of whack. Plugs, wires, cap and you’re generally good to go. Maybe not optimally efficient without a rebuild, but nice and smooth.
Thanks, appreciate the comments on the carb/injection question!
Fuel injectors were likely to clog due partly to fuel quality at the time and injector design. By the 90’s injector design was improved and fuel quality has greatly improved. But the Seville’s fuel injection system is more complex than it needed to be (a throttle body would have been just as good). However, if you run across something with the fuel injection system and the car is everything you want, then I would not reject it outright. But the fuel injection system should be checked out by someone qualified to make sure no obvious problems are there. A history of repairs to it would also be very helpful (such as were the injectors all replaced and when).
The Cadillacs to avoid are the FWD Northstar’s. These engines were best (but not good) when new. RWD Northstar’s are OK.
The green SDV is pretty, but are the tires too small? I see the skinny whitewalls, but the sidewall doesn’t look tall enough. I recognize that it’s getting more and more difficult to find tires to fit these old barges, especially whitewalls, so perhaps that is the “modern” equivalent to what it came with 40 years ago.
I think these Cadillacs called for what today would be roughly 235 75R15s (L Size then?) IIRC, they called for a slightly bigger size on the Cadillacs than on the Olds and Buick C-Bodies, which (at least for my Olds) are roughly equivalent to 225 75R15s (J Size then, I believe)
It may be the distance, but these do look a little small, like maybe 215s, which I think are the most common tires you can find with whitewalls at your local Pep Boys since IIRC they are the ones that the Grand Marquis and Town Cars from the 1990s/2000s use.
I wanted the 1 7/16 whitewalls in the 225 size, but didn’t want to pay Coker tire prices, ended up finding Chinese SureTrac Power Touring models which look great.
My current favourite for these cars is a 235/75/15 Hankook Optimo, with second choice being a Hercules tire. Both come with a 1″ whitewall in various sizes, but the Hankook seems to ride a bit nicer and is more quiet. I have seem a Chinese made “Runway” tire in this size that has a slightly wider whitewall, but have no experience with these tires.
Remember that a number of Cadillac’s of this era had wheel covers that fit flush with the rim, and utilized specialized “Cadillac” weights for balancing (essentially unobtanium today). so you’d need to have the tires “dynamically” balanced on the inside if you want to keep your wheel covers undamaged. Below is the Eldo getting her tires changed.
I think the “Runway” might be the same tire as the SureTrac, but they keep changing the name. I’ve had mine (225 75R15s) for a year and have been happy with them. 235s work but seem a little chunky.
2 years ago I purchased the downsized 1978 Coupe Deville bronze ext color with brown leather int. All original 16K car with all paperwork & owners manual. Beautiful machine from the beautiful past! Asking price was 17K I got it for 15K
Other than the size and engines, one other thing I do like about these vs the 77-92 series is the metal trim piece down the middle of the peaked hood to the hood ornament. The prow of these looks great from the driver’s seat of either model, but that metal strip really add some undefinable something.
It may have been addressed in a previous reply, but when these were common on the road, virtually every one had the plastic material fallen away from around the taillight units, lending a very cheap impression. I’ve never before had an explanation as to why this was, and why that part couldn’t be replaced more readily. I would appreciate a little history on this, so that it doesn’t stay as my permanent impression of these Cadillacs.
The plastic turned brittle with age, UV exposure, and temperature changes. I had some that lasted about 20 years.
Hate is too strong a word for my opinion of these Cadillacs, but I will say that I’ve never liked them very much. I too would much prefer a final Imperial (or under its posthumous life as the New Yorker Brougham). Like most cars and certainly the big GMs of this era, the Cadillacs were glaringly cheap inside, which is the biggest reason I can never find much affection for them. Isn’t it interesting how our opinions of cars change over the years though?
This particular car appears to be in unusually good condition, and it’s in a nice colour. Other than that: gross. Just about the entire collection of ’71-’76 GM B-bodies were beaten to a pulp with the ugly stick, but the first couple years of Cadillacs managed to avoid the worst of the bloated, ungainly, Frankenstein’s-monster’s-corpse effect resulting from a random collection of crammed-together, misshapen, ungainly curves. By the time the excrescence pictured here came down the line, Cadillac had succumbed. Look at that melted-bar-of-soap quarter window randomly hacked into the sail panel. Look at that crapmess of a rear end, with random chrome blades replacing what had in ’71-’72 been elegant vertical taillights, and disproportionately small horizontal taillights carelessly thrown onto the filler panel. This body shell was not meant to have rectangular headlamps, yet GM disfigured these cars with them anyhow—it creates an awkward mismatch between the rectilinearity of the front end and the bloated curves of the rest of the car. These are among the cars I’m glad we generally don’t see any more because they make my eyes want to bleed.
This is not a safe car—not even a “fairly safe” one, unless we’re unreasonably comparing it only to a car ten years older.
Well, safe as in 3 point belts, headrest, side beams, disc brakes, etc. Certainly safer than something from the 50s or 60s.
Compared to my ’64 Falcon this ’76 Cadillac has a score and more safety features. I have four safety features: Great visibility, side-view mirror bolted to the driver’s door, back-up lights in the center of the tails and the lap belts. That’s it. I think the Caddy is certainly safe ~enough~ for someone looking to drive an old car daily that has some Federally mandated safety features. Plus, it’s BIG.
I know I’d feel more secure in a 1976 Cadillac than I would in a ’76 Pinto or Chevette, for instance.
I dig this 41-year-old beastie. I’m glad it’s being used for a purpose other than a car show ‘specimen’ in 2017. I like land yachts of the ’60s and ’70s. I wish I could own one again, but I don’t drive enough to justify having more than 1 car. Maybe someday . . .
If a car lime mine collided with it, the car like mine would be the loser! lol
Oh, thank the lord, someone has raised the Rectangle Headlight Issue.
It’s as if they discovered them in the parts bin – the reject bin, surely – and then Someone Of Importance happenstanced upon the poor sap who was holding them to the light saying “thank [deities, name your own] they never used these mofo’s” – who then in a moment of inartistic hubris, he decreed their universal application. Slathered ’em on the lot, and practically none was ever suited.
The first incarnation of these extremely large cars was absurd and intellectually insulting, for sure, but I’ll bashfully admit the flowing excesses looked nice, particularly when plain. And round headlit. (Add vinyl pants on the roof section or extra windows and bumpers and it all got to become a rolling Baroque gargoyle, for sure). I’m overseas, you see. To me, via grainy tv images or films, these things announced the normalcy of gigantism, of overlordism. “This is a normal piece of transport, what’s ya issue here?”, they said. ‘Course, it wasn’t, but I wasn’t to know that then, and I too wanted to screech round corners and burble with V8-ness and be ensconsed in velour. The fundamentals are actually quite well-styled, you know.
But no angry doped-up frowny driving lights bolted in in place of the roundies, thanks.
Apart from which, no strong opinions here.
If I recall correctly, 1975 was the first model year that cars with rectangular headlights could be legally sold in the U.S. In the mid-1970s, these headlights were therefore viewed by American customers as the “hot new thing.”
(As a young boy, I remember looking at my Matchbox Opel Diplomat in the late 1960s, and asking my father why it had square headlights, which was something I had never seen before.)
GM was the style leader among the domestics in those days, and the full-size C-Bodies and E-Bodies were its most prestigious offerings, so they were fitted with the new headlights first. Whether they were a good fit is debatable. My opinion is that the 1975 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight wears them the best.
The exception was the 1975 H-bodies – the Buick Skyhawk, Chevrolet Monza and Oldsmobile Starfire. They featured the rectangular headlights, too, but they looked as though they had been designed with them in mind from day one.
Close, but not quite. It wasn’t that GM found them in the parts bin, it’s that GM put them in the parts bin. The 165 × 100 mm rectangular 4-lamp system was designed and developed by GM’s Guide Lamp division. As I described in this ’77 Chev Malibu piece:
the [American] automakers, especially GM, wheedled and cajoled NHTSA into approving small rectangular headlamps by arguing—with a straight face—that they were needed for fuel economy: the 7-inch round headlamp was too tall; it was getting in the way of good aerodynamics, they said. Small low-profile rectangular headlamps just 4 inches tall wouldn’t reduce nighttime vision too awful badly, they said, and would bring about low-profile, wind-cheating frontal design, they said. NHTSA eventually said okeh, and the automakers, especially GM, immediately started perching them one atop the other. Four plus four equals less than 7; it was the era of new math.
Oh, but wait, there’s more. Grab a barf bag before you click to embiggen the pic attached here.
I concur; that is HIDEOUS. A ’71 Cadillac with after-market square headlamps?!
Gawd!
As an aficionado of 71/72 Cadillacs, the problem here is not really the shape of the headlamps. Whoever did this also removed all the detailing and turn signal lamps around the headlights. And its obviously a generic part like you would see on an RV or something.
That being said, the front end was designed for headlights of a certain height, but with some design and slightly lower hood, square headlamps might have worked on these machiens.
[ Reply ]
I agree with everything except the first part of what you said: the removed details and turn signals make the front end look stripped, the generic transit-bus headlamp assembly and frame make it look cheap, and the new lamps are too short (vertically). But I don’t think the rectangular lamps would look right even if they were taller. They look passable on the ’76 DeVille’s front end, if the front end is considered alone without the rest of the car. They look right at home on the ’75 Seville and the downsized ’77 big Cads.
Oblong ones with rounded left and right edges (like these or these or these), if the details were appropriate, might’ve looked quite nice on the ’71-’74 Cadillacs, but such lamps were many years away from legality in the United States when those cars were built. Barring that, I think the quad round lamps are the only ones that look appropriate on these cars as designed and built.
Yeah, looks like nothing anyone would pay for.. Kind a has that “tinkerer’s/try this” vibe.
I hope that’s a slip-on seat cover. I can’t imagine paying money for an upholstery job as crappy looking as that.
I always smile when I see a clean old ride being used as a daily diver. That being said, this generation of B/C body isn’t on my wish list. My father-in-law, however, would be drooling over it. He still misses his old ’73 Coupe DeVille.
A picture of, but no mention of the glorious piece of GM engineering…. Fiber Optic Light Monitors!!! Those wonders got me out of a dui several years back in my 79 sedan Deville. I was leaving a bar in a upper middle class neighborhood after a few drinks (3), I don’t know if I was over the limit or not, but I’m sure I was floating it… And a cop watched me pull out, rolled up on me and hit the lights. I pulled over and rolled down the window thinking this is it… The officr approached and I asked what I did. He claimed my left taillight was out and it was a courtesy stop. I glanced in my rear view mirror and saw both taillights glowing proud in my Fiber Optic Light Monitors and came tore into the poor bastard before he had another word out… Something along the lines of “now don’t give me that horseshit, you saw me pull out of that bar, you don’t like my old beater tooling around your ritzy neighborhood, and your profiling me to get your dui. Yes I’ve had 2 beers (little lie lol) but I’m damn sure under the limit, and if your gonna pull this little stunt at least have the balls to come out and say it, don’t go making up bullshit taillight stories to get your probbibal cause…” at this point I pointed at the rear windscreen and pointed to the fiber optic light monitors, with both dots glowing”… See those” I continued “… Those dots have a direct fiber optic link to my taillights, if those are glowing, my bulbs are fine, so cut the shit. Now if you told me a license plate light was out… I’d have to believe you” the cop obviously taken aback mumbled some thing about being obviously not impaired and have a nice day while retreating to his car… One of my proudest moments AND one of my dumbest! Thanks Cadillac!
I was a kid when these were new, so as others have noted, it really informs your perspective. Being only about six when these were introduced, I only knew that Cadillacs and Lincolns were the “best” (not including exotics like Rolls and far less common Mercedes). I thought they looked fantastic, as big as they were, but when my dad bought a new SDV in 1973, after having an Olds and then a Buick, I knew even then that the interiors were shit. The leather was really nice, but the rest didn’t strike me as any better than a standard Le Sabre. And then, being only 10 when the ’75s came out, these seemed kind of old. Remember, in the 60s, Cadillac bodies didn’t go more than two years. The extra bling on the front and rear ends and the sail panel window did these big C bodies no favors.
But today, from the outside, they still look fantastic. My pick would be a 72 Fleetwood.
While it is true that the 59-60 bodies were only two years, the new bodies for 1961 were only refreshed for 63. Then the 65 bodies were not changed except for minor changes until 1971.
For the interiors, the Cadillac’s offered leather but otherwise I don’t think they were much better than a Buick or Oldsmobile. A top of the line Chevrolet was nearly as nice.
The ’61 and ’62s looked much like the ’63-64s, and I know the ’65-’70s were related, but there were some big sheet metal changes every other year. I thought the ’65-66, ’67-68, and ’69-70s were pretty distinct from each other. And when you’re young, a few years seemed like a long time!
a lot depends on what you mean by changes to the body. To me a new body is one that is reengineered or redesigned. This usually was done every 5 or 6 years. For the C-bodies (Cadillac) 1959 was a major update, then 1961. The 1965 model year was new and then 1971. The B bodies were also new in those years. But every year there were styling changes which don’t change the bodies. Changing the creases in the body does not change the basic design.
Looking at the body does not tell you if the design is new or old. For example the 1992-1997 Seville is one design, while the 1998 is an all new body, but the style is nearly the same.
I understand that the whole car wasn’t re-engineered every two years, but the back then, the styling changes were significant enough to make the three iterations of the ’65-70s look pretty different from each other, at least in my eyes, then and now.
Thought the car looked familiar.
Actually, the 1971-1973 BM hippo B Bodies were not bad cars. True, their gas mileage sucked and handling left a lot to be desired. Style wise for what they were it was a nice evolution. However once we hit 1974-1976 the General threw the ugly stick at them and pimped them out. Opera Windows big bumpers (mandated) They were stale. The worst of them was the 2 door Deuce and A Quarter limited with the cheesy opera window. That made the car look like the “Precious” of Buicks.
I think that while the window is fixed, it really is too big to call it an opera window. An opera window should be small, too small to be useful to see out of unless you are seated next to it.
I hated most of those “opera” windows that were just short of the size of a full window; most of them interrupted whatever lines the car might have had, though the ones in the C pillars of the car in this story, following the lines of the other side windows, don’t bother me. That said, I’ll bet those later coups with fixed rear windows were much less prone to creaks and rattles than the earlier pillarless designs. The Fleetwoods, in which the added B-pillar filled the 3″ gap left by the wheelbase stretch was also probably less creaky than the pillarless Sedan Deville. It’s sad what they did to the Fleetwood for 1977, especially the way they had to delete the footrests in mid-year because customers were complaining that they made the cars cramped. I’ve always thought that even if they couldn’t offer a wheelbase stretch with the pressure of the CAFE standards, they could have given the model a slightly higher roofline and power thigh bolsters front and rear to preserve the car’s status as a boardroom on wheels.
I never knew the downsized Fleetwoods (limos excepted) ever had footrests. The 77-later Fleetwood seemed pointless to me now that it shared its wheelbase and length with de Villes, with only that weird tapered B pillar to distinguish it (yes, I know that’s a throwback to prewar Cadillacs, but younger people probably missed that reference). The facelifted ’80 models had even less to distinguish the Fleetwood.
The Fleetwood 60 Special lost its extra wheelbase inches for a few years in the late 50s,too.
A guy I knew had one of these. I got some passenger seat time in it, and we floated down the road together.
The chap who owned it did have a certain charismatic personna about him, he announced his presence when he arrived at work in the morning, and on phone calls. “This is Murray” and the person at the other end had better know which Murray it was.
I did find it unusual that he had a car that was much, much nicer than his boss’ car – a plain old Catalina. However since he could afford it and drove it to work every day, he very much enjoyed this car. 500 cubes in a commuter car – ok, just not for me, and certainly not at today’s gas prices of upwards of $5.50 Canadian per Imperial gallon.
Thanks for the repost of this one. Always seems to draw out the conversation!
Question – if this owner has an Indiana plate on the rear, that indicates the real registration, correct? if so, is it really legal that he keeps the Colorado plate on the front also?
Think “Indiana” may be a “one plate, state”.
“Isn’t it funny how we can fall into the trap of passing judgment on how others spend their automotive dollars?”
Pretty interesting observation, Mr Cavanaugh. I think it mostly affects people who know more than most about cars, and as with everything else can be more strident in our younger years.
I know I have my personal absolutes, but they are largely based on the balance between knowledge and emotion. An easy one: I love Range Rovers in many ways, and can afford to buy one. The abysmal reliability is something I can’t overcome, and I prefer a lower profile in general. When I see someone driving a Rover I don’t think about whether they made the choice for the right reasons, but I do wonder if they knew what they are likely getting into.
Please don’t think I’m singling Rover out, many other examples could be listed. People spending their own money should be free to choose… even if I wouldn’t agree.
I’m your ’63 Fleetwood spoiled you for later Cadillacs.
All I will say is don’t knock ’em till you try one. I miss the days when these were still easily available as cheap beater daily drivers. I bought one in ’97 or ’98 for $450 at a sketchy used car lot near the Philly Airport. The paint had mostly peeled off and the vinyl top was chalky, but the interior was 90 percent perfect. It needed a belt and an alignment, and a parts store recharge kit revived the A/C. That was all, and I had a great comfortable daily driver for the next two years. The 1977-up downsized models did not age as well, especially inside. While I was still driving my ’76, I would regularly see 1977-79 models in yards with totally trash interiors — sagging headliners, shredded seats, cheap plastic window control panels broken off the doors, you name it.
Huge Caddy’s………meh, but that Gen 1 Seville shown in the ad: YE$!!!!!!!!!! 🙂 I can still remember going to the Madison, WI Caddy dealer just to eyeball one of those new ’75s in 3D, oh WOW! I was a young Industrial Designer with a year or so in the field when these appeared, and my eyes were-and still are-struck by their clean visual appeal.
To me the Gen 1 Seville was probably the best sedan design GM did in the 70s. Of course, it still was hard to surpass my DD (in good weather), ’56 Chevy 150 2dr. sedan with the ’66 327 I put in it; built at the long gone Van Nuys GM plant. While in L.A. it was my everyday car. To bad my ’56 wasn’t worth then what a ’56 is valued at now; I could have traded for that shiny new ’75 Seville!!! and gotten money back 🙂 DFO
Wire wheelcovers were factory options in ’76, but they weren’t popular until ’77+, so these could be owner-added, as is the Fleetwood standup hood ornament (the reason it has two crests). From the factory, you only got one–on the hood or above it, and no wreath on DeVille.
I’ve long wondered why Buick and Cadillac had an ugly bit of vinyl roof edging on the rear door but Oldsmobile managed to avoid doing that on the 98.
As a youth, my favorite Cadillac was the 1967 – from the outside. I’d had some exposure to the ’62 and ’64 Cadillac, and was fascinated by the chrome buttons and elegant styling inside.
When I first saw the interior of the 1967, I was underwhelmed. I liked the dash in my Grandfather’s 1967 Chevrolet Caprice more. A CHEVY had a better interior?
But wait, there’s more! By 1970 the Cadillac had a non color keyed black plastic dash cockpit and an always black steering wheel. Could it get worse?
Call me weird, but the ’71 seemed an improvement. The ’73-’74 cars were tweaked, and for me were probably the nadir of Cadillac interiors. Kudos to Cadillac for introducing the fakest fake wood in the whole faking industry.
The ’75-’76 cars seemed to clean up a few details, and certainly sold well as the last of their giant and sometimes gentle kind.
No doubt, they had presence, then, and now. I can recall being at the local mall for a movie with a friend in probably 1976 and waiting outside for my friend’s mom to pick us up. Parked by the curb, first in line with a full view from three sides was a maroon over maroon Fleetwood in showroom perfect condition. Something must be special if you remember it a half century later.
The colossus of Cadillacs….
I agree, the ridiculously deep, black binnacle on the ’69-70 felt chintzier than the ’71-3 dash, even in black plastic Calais trim. The front seatbacks were also too tall for short drivers.
Funny that matte-finished wood is now back in style, but this time without the carving and with a thin slice of actual tree. I wish the pendulum would stop somewhere between high gloss and matte, both of which seem fake (and difficult to keep clean) to me.
“Something must be special if you remember it a half century later.”
Had the same experience with one of these cars!
We lived in Youngstown, OH on the edge of town. A row of nice old houses built in the late 1920’s through mid-30’s, on a hill, so the driveway next door dropped several feet from our backyard. I remember seeing through the bushes a midnight blue Fleetwood, probably a ’75 rather than ’76, parked in the shady drive next door, big old majestic trees all around it. There looking down slightly on a car gives a unique view.
Our house was a Tudor while theirs was… am not sure what… a dark brick Tudor maybe, but with no painted areas. Had a bit of a Dark Shadows vibe. By the late 60’s nobody wanted these houses, everyone was moving out to the burbs to live in brand new “development” houses. We got a deal and my parents appreciated the quality. Flash forward 50 years and the houses on our street aged well, still solid and majestic as ever, while the development houses have fallen apart and look cheap and awful.
And so, majestically stand these old Caddies and Lincolns and Imperials. Out of date, perhaps even when they were built, but solid, timeless and majestic, and now living in a sea of “development cars” that came after them, most of which have fallen apart, because they were never worth keeping up in the first place.
Lovely car, and yes presence is what they’re all about along with space and comfort.
I had the pleasure of owning a ’74 and ’76 Olds 98, and a ’75 Sedan deVille. I think the Olds were better built and a better handling and driving car. YMMV but given the choice I’d go with an Olds over the Cad again, hands down. Here’s the ’74.
That said none of them could hold a candle to GM C-bodies of the ’61 to ’68 era, imo.
Here’s my silver on silver ’76, more understated as the chrome didn’t stand out but sort of receded into the overall design.
In 76 Cadillac still was a great American Land YACHT. But sad to see what now wears Cadillac name. Glorified trucks. Fortunately Lincoln continued Town Cars after Cadillac first downsized. Unfortunately FMC has now joined the rush to SUVS and crossovers and dropped Town Cars! Will happily drive my 2007 Town Car Signature Limited (which should easily give over 300,000 miles with proper care) until it (per my instructions) will literally carry my cremains to my grave!