(first posted 5/11/2018) Once upon a time, there was a luxury car brand with an almost magical ability to spin profits for its maker. Cadillac, the flagship division of General Motors, had clearly mastered the formula for appealing to wealthy Americans (and those wanting to appear wealthy) in the 1960s. Like clockwork for 1969, Cadillac refreshed its core Calais/DeVille/Fleetwood with “better-than-ever” benefits to keep buyers coming back for more. So, let’s turn to Road Test Magazine from May 1969 to get behind the wheel of a Coupe DeVille to see Cadillac’s alchemy up close.
One major driver for Cadillac’s success was the brand’s gold-plated image. Carefully cultivated through the years, Cadillac was positioned as the “ultimate” in American cars. Luxury buyers knew exactly what they were getting with a Cadillac, as did the “onlookers” who those buyers were seeking to impress. Styling continuity between generations was assured—always fresh, always flashy, always unmistakably “Cadillac.” Bragging rights were further bolstered with the latest in comfort and convenience features, motivated by smooth, strong powertrains. The cars were showboats of the first order.
Road Test was quite correct to point out that people either loved or loathed Cadillac. Such a flamboyant display of wealth was certainly not to everyone’s taste. But the brand was inextricably woven into the U.S. cultural fabric for good or bad, and it inspired passionate feelings on both sides: either as the embodiment of the American Dream or the caricature of the fat, vulgar American. And in some cases, those worlds could even collide: no doubt more than a few young countercultural “revolutionaries” from the Age of Aquarius had a Caddy-driving Daddy quietly paying the bills—after all, it’s so much easier to rage against the Bourgeoisie when you don’t (have to) care about money….
Look closely at the pictures of the Coupe DeVille and you can see that the car sports curb feelers on the right-hand side. It was indeed a big beast, so canny dealer add-ons to “assist” parking were probably an easy sell.
Despite the car’s bulk, the Cadillac was surprisingly spritely. It was no race car, but offered exactly the sort of easy, abundant power a Cadillac owner would demand. Plus, owners had the benefit of being able to brag about driving the car with the biggest engine offered in the American market.
Unsurprisingly, the Caddy was not a good handler. It was a lavish straight-line cruiser, optimized for quiet, roomy comfort and not agility. Which, of course, was precisely what the bulk of American luxury car buyers wanted—the allure of European-style driving dynamics was still in its infancy at the time, appealing only to the select few members of the automotive cognoscenti.
Of course, one of the Cadillac’s biggest fortes was comfort and convenience. Anything that could be power-operated was (either standard or as an option), with available “set-and-forget” climate control and state-of-the-art (for the time) sound systems. The Cadillac was comfortable, smooth, easy, pampering—plush and posh when those attributes were viewed as the ultimate in automotive luxury by the vast majority of U.S. buyers.
This Road Test Magazine article was quite sparse on data, offering limited information on specifications and test results, plus no detail on pricing. However, based on descriptions in the copy along with the photos, the optional equipment list for the test car could be pretty accurately determined, along with an estimate of the list price from period price guides. And that number?
| 1969 $ | Adjusted $ | |
| Base MSRP | 5,703.00 | 40,137.00 |
| Dual Comfort Seat | 105.25 | 741.00 |
| Power Seat Adjuster (Driver) | 89.50 | 630.00 |
| Power Seat Adjuster (Front Passenger) | 115.80 | 815.00 |
| Power Door Locks | 68.45 | 482.00 |
| Power Trunk Release | 52.65 | 371.00 |
| Rear Window Defogger | 26.35 | 185.00 |
| Cruise Control | 94.75 | 667.00 |
| Guidematic Headlamp Control | 50.55 | 356.00 |
| AM/FM Stereo Radio | 288.40 | 2,030.00 |
| Automatic Climate Control | 515.75 | 3,630.00 |
| Soft Ray Tinted Glass | 52.65 | 371.00 |
| White Wall Tires | 56.85 | 400.00 |
| Total Price | 7,219.95 | 50,815.00 |
The hefty option load on the test DeVille would have been pretty typical. After all, if you were going to splurge for a Caddy, why not get all the bells and whistles? Which was music to the ears of GM’s financial types. Plus, the music turned into a symphony when Cadillac’s sales volume was taken into account.
| Calais | DeVille | Fleetwood (including Limo) | Eldorado | |
| 2-door Hardtop | 5,600 | 65,755 | – | 23,333 |
| 2-door Convertible | – | 16,445 | – | – |
| 4-door Hardtop | 6,825 | 72,958 | – | – |
| 4-door Sedan | – | 7,890 | 21,881 | – |
| Total | 12,425 | 163,048 | 21,881 | 23,333 |
As an added delight for GM bean counters, the slowest selling models happened to the be the cheapest. The tremendous bulk of sales were the juicy-margined “mid-range” DeVille hardtops, with healthy additional business in the top-of-the-line Fleetwood and Eldorado models. And it’s hard to overstate the luxury market dominance these sales represented.
| Make | 1969 Sales |
| Cadillac | 220,687 |
| Lincoln | 61,378 |
| Volvo | 36,146 |
| Mercedes-Benz | 26,193 |
| Imperial | 22,077 |
| BMW | 14,574 |
| Porsche | 5,893 |
| Jaguar | 5,700 |
For 1969, Cadillac single-handedly outsold every other luxury make in the U.S.—imported and domestic—combined! That Cadillac Goose was hatching quite a lot of golden eggs….
Though Road Test only offered black-and-white photos in the article, the copy mentioned that the test Coupe DeVille was gold. Based on a little sleuthing, the images can be “colorized.” The test car was most likely painted Shalimar Gold, just like this well-preserved example.
Shalimar Gold was one of 21 Cadillac exterior colors on offer for the year, including 5 extra-cost Firemist colors, which would have added $132 ($929 adjusted) to the price. I’m guessing that the gold on Road Test’s Coupe DeVille was the “standard” Shalimar Gold rather than the extra cost Chalice Gold Firemist, since the latter color was deeper and would have looked darker in the black-and-white photographs.
Adding evidence to my theory is data on the take rate for Cadillac colors in 1969. Based on information provided in Cadillac Dealer Sales Guides and Data Books for 1969 and 1970, the chart above illustrates the popularity of each color available on the 1969 DeVille models (excluding the DeVille convertible). Shalimar Gold ranked at number one, with the light Palmetto Green coming in second—a far cry from today’s #1 Black, #2 Gray on luxury cars. Chalice Gold Firemist was only found on 3.3% of closed-roof DeVilles, though the extra-cost color was more popular on the pricier Fleetwood (8.1% of production) and Eldorado (9.6% of production). It was a golden age for Cadillac!
Inside, Road Test’s Coupe DeVille featured “Dardanelle” cloth in Medium Gold with Antique Medium Gold leather bolsters, one of 17 available interior trim choices (2 different cloth designs–Dardanelle or Delphine–plus all-leather options) in a broad array of colors: Black, White, Dark Blue, Medium Aqua, Dark Green, Light Flax, Medium Gold, Dark Cordovan, Dark Mauve, Medium Red. The Medium Gold Dardanelle cloth can be seen in all its full-color glory in the picture above, from a ’69 Sedan DeVille. Ever so Sixties!
With 2018 tastes and sensibilities, we may look back on the 1969 DeVille and scoff: that size, that appalling handling, that inefficient V8 engine, those “old-school” colors and interiors—but Cadillac was absolutely on-target for the high-end tastes of the time. It really wasn’t until the 1980s that Cadillac totally lost its fashion sense by continuing with the styles of the 1970s long after they fell out of favor, thus becoming an “old person’s car.” Adding salt to the wound were dreadful engines, cheapened materials and poor reliability, with correspondingly poor resale value—thus negating basically all the reasons buyers once flocked to Cadillac dealerships with a checkbook in hand. People can’t show off with a loser.
The dictionary defines the Golden Goose as “a continuing source of wealth or profit that may be exhausted if it is misused.” One of General Motors’ biggest gaffes ever was allowing Cadillac to become irrelevant and undesirable (be sure to peruse the many CC Deadly Sin posts chronicling some of Cadillac’s most disgraceful missteps). Once a luxury brand loses its image, it’s game over. Compounding the problem is the fact that Cadillac still can’t seem to even grasp the reasons buyers once aspired to own its cars (hint: no one ever bought a Cadillac because they thought it was a German sport sedan).
Ironically, one brand today that arguably comes close to matching what Cadillac represented in its heyday hails from an Indian conglomerate by way of England: Land Rover/Range Rover. Like the 1960s Cadillacs, Land Rover’s products are decidedly decadent, with consistent, well-executed designs, stylish interiors, ample choices for options and personalization, up-to-the-minute powertrains—along with abundant snob appeal and British brand heritage. Land Rover’s image transcends the vehicle’s pragmatic benefits— absolutely no-one needs very expensive off-roaders that never go off road, but people sure do want them in order to show off. Sounds similar to the reasons plenty of people bought huge, shiny Shalimar Gold DeVilles in 1969….
Tastes may change but status seeking motivations remain the same, providing a very comfortable nest for a golden goose, to the benefit of companies smart enough to figure out the formula. True in 1969, true today, and central to the art of marketing high margin luxury brands.
Additional Reading:
My New Curbside Classic: 1969 Cadillac Sedan DeVille – 38¢ Per Pound by Guest Writer
Curbside Classic: 1969 Cadillac DeVille Convertible – Please Turn The Lights Out When You Leave by J P Cavanaugh
What a beautiful car.
Though of course quite large, I dont even think that its particularly vulgar or ostentatious looking but rather austere, in fact no nonsensical, very much straight to the point.
I find it interesting that even back then Road Test Magazin was able to dissect (and diss ?) Cadillac´s image such precisely. I would have rather thought that in the 60s its image was pristine all around.
In Europe you would not really get to see any of them….occasionally maybe in countries such as Switzerland i.e.
In fact, from what I remember Cadillac was kind of considered by the general (european) public to be the go to brand for the nouveau riches…or even worse…”shady characters” from the “underworld”….pimps…;-)
In that regard the image was quite similar to GM´s European Opel flagship models Kapitän / Admiral / Diplomat.
Being only slightly smaller than full size american luxobarges in the public perception they embodied the typical lack of / poor taste of the parvenus / nouveau riche clientele who seemingly fancied flamboyantly designed cars to show off to their envious neighbours.
You’re right about the opinion Europeans have about not only Cadillac but American cars in general. They were -and maybe still are- considered pimpmobiles: too big, too flashy and too cumbersome. Add to this the (very) high fuel consumption and the picture is complete. American brands never did well in Western Europe after WW2. Even today, when I’m cruising around in my nicely restored non-customized ’63 Caddie I get “certain looks”, specially from older folks.
really? I thought that would have changed in the meantime…
friend of mine lives in Berlin and cruises around town in his Pontiac Bonneville convertible from the 60s…reactions are awesome…all positive. People stop and stare, wave, take pictures, ask if they can take a seat…
Except for when he is taking up two parking spots in the neighborhood ! 😉
Oh, don’t get me wrong, most reactions are definitely positive! Lots of thumbs up. However, there’s still this “je ne sais quoi” with some old people. A sort of vague disapprovement.
I have also noticed that younger people, roughly aged between 15-30, don’t seem to have any interest in old cars. Barely a glance. To me that’s strange, as me and my friends were completely crazy about classic cars when we were that age.
true – the younger generations usually couldn´t care less about cars in general…
Oh my, MonzamanGermany! A 1960s Pontiac Bonneville convertible! I’ve sensed that there was then and is presently an interest in ’60s American cars, and I always think of the Bonneville as more representative of the “average American” of the time. It had the style and presence of a Cadillac, but at a more affordable price point. The US was in the midst of booming while the Continent and the UK were still digging out from the War. But it seems as if the upswing of the US car industry was starting to plateau (quality, durability, performance) just as car manufacturers in Europe were beginning to hit their stride (BMW “neue klasse”; Mercedes Pullman, W108/W109 especially with the 6.3-litre V8). And agreed that this sure beats the gray or black SUV, etc. that is commonplace the world over. So much for individualism!!!! Funny enough, the latest ginomous SUVs and pickups in the States make the Bonneville and Cadillac seem medium size. US cars were big in the 1960s and 1970s, but at least you could see over and around them for safety purposes!!!
“A beautiful place to buy or lease a beautiful car.”
“10700 Studebaker Rd.”
“Paging JP Cavanaugh…”
“Where the freeways meet in Downey”
Mom bought her ’75 CDV there.
Car has power everything except the outside mirrors, odd.
An electric outside driver’s side mirror wasn’t available on Cadillac production vehicles until 1979.
Cable operated remote mirrors were a common option on American cars; electric motors were relatively big, heavy and expensive compared to today (similarly, power windows began as hydraulic systems, not electric). Also, there wasn’t much emphasis on mirrors. Right hand mirrors were an exotic option 50 years ago–the test car in the article doesn’t appear to have one. Traffic was slower and less dense, fewer miles were driven on multi lane roads, and drivers weren’t firmly strapped down facing forward.
50 years ago, 1968, speed limits on Interstates were 70-75.
55 mph wasn’t put in place til ’74.
Interstate travel and divided highways were less common in 1969, and traffic was less dense. Modern urban and suburban high speed highway traffic in close proximity would have been considered bonkers in 1969. My parents commuted downtown four miles at 32 mph (Dad had the lights timed) on a two lane street in 1969. That’s a 20 mile trip on an 8 lane interstate highway for me. Only 5 miles of that interstate existed in 1969; previously it was city streets and two lane state highways. There were no interstate roads inside the bypass ring, and no roads inside the bypass with a speed limit over 40 mph.
I watched part of the two lane state highway to my grandparents’ house converted to a four lane divided highway in 1970. The last half still was two lanes. They’re finally converting the whole road to interstate now.
IIRC, the first cars to come with electric mirrors were expensive 911 Porsches. I vividly recall Car and Driver being bemused with the feature and remarking that they could be tilted in such a manner to watch for overhead airborne traffic patrols.
I remember our 1972 Buick Estate Wagon was the first car my Dad owned with dual mirrors. Only the drivers was remote via cable. Adjustment of the passenger required us to roll the window down…by crank…and adjust the entire housing.
My 1980 VW Scirocco had only 1 mirror, albeit remote, while my 1981 Scirocco S had dual mirrors both remote. The passenger side could only be adjusted from the knob on the passenger door though requiring the driver to reach over or have the passenger do it.
Man are we spoiled now.
Yes, I had a ’78 Scirocco which had the cabled “remote” left (driver’s) adjustable outside mirror, that was touted as an “advanced” feature back then…plus I think someone had added the (manually adjusted) passenger mirror as an accessory (I had problems with the mounting which led me to believe it was added later…I bought the car in 1981…it was my first car having a passenger side mirror.
My Father had a ’73 Country Sedan wagon that had a (manual) passenger side mirror, but it also came with the trailer towing package, so I’m not sure if it would have come with it otherwise, but it was his first car with the passenger side mirror. We did tow a 20′ pop-top trailer with it, and added the fender mount temporary mirrors when we did, so we could better see the trailer than just with the standard mirror. Interestingly, I don’t recall the passenger mirror as being convex, it was just a regular mirror (also the passenger mirror on my Scirocco was regular).
Nowdays passenger mirrors are standard on all vehicles, as far as I can tell (is this by regulation? or due to the poor visibility out of vehicles? and they are pretty much all remote controlled I think. One thing that has changed is the proliferation of electric motors all over cars, they must have gotten much less expensive…I don’t think you see the vacuum controls (for locks, etc) that you used to see back in the 70’s…and remote mirror control is undoubtedly much easier with inexpensive electric motors. I think they use them for air control blend doors under the dash, also in place of vacuum.
So you may hear weird noises under your dash, but they’re less likely to be the result of vacuum leaks when one of the nipples for the air control breaks, rather now some problem with electric motor or the transmission of the motion to the blend mechanism inside the dash.
No personal experience with the ’69 Cadillac…they were of course very popular. I worked with a guy who had a ’67 Convertible back in the day; he’s gone now (not sure what happened to his car). My Father was more into family cars, the closest he came to a “luxury” car was probably the ’78 Caprice Classic Wagon he bought off the showroom floor…today it would be considered to have “basic” standard equipment (AM/FM, Air Conditioning, Power Windows/Locks) but back then it was well equipped (even had the passenger side mirror, remote control through the door (on the passenger side) though it was the first car with the convex (vehicles are closer than they appear) shape that he owned.
In depth review of a 1969 Cadillac Coupé de Ville
Maybe Tesla should install some curb feelers with microswitches feeding into the computer. Clearly the super-fancy radar is failing to detect walls and medians… or more precisely it has an unquenchable desire to drive INTO walls and medians.
Actually, curb feelers … or a touchless electronic equivalent … would be a great addition to modern cars with ultra-low-profile tires and vulnerable alloy rims. Almost as useful as backup cameras and blind spot monitors.
I have had this idea for years and if I had more ambition and electronic know how I probably could have been a millionaire. I can’t believe no one with that has come up with this from a factory or aftermarket level, I’d buy a set today!
I’ve long been an admirer of the 69-70 Cadillacs, as I feel that they were some of the last good looking Caddies until the downsized models came out in 1977. Even though I admit the 75-76 are favorites of mine, I find them more guilty pleasures then timeless designs. While I’ve grown to like the 65-67 models more than these, these are still really good designs, much more brash and bulky, but still well done in its own way. Make mine a 69 Fleetwood 75 in Sable Black with all the trimmings.
I can’t remember the last time I hear someone use the term “Caddie”. Seems that the term of affection sort of went away when affection for the car disappeared.
I love the reference to Snob appeal in an American publication about an American car. I hope this puts an end to the constant snipes about the British class system on this site.
This is one of the least successful Cadillac styles for me something about the roof c pillar and the kick up of the rear wing line looks heavy to me , but the front is quite nice
I agree on the coupe roof – it looked awkward. But “formal” was becoming the new thing.
Also, Cadillac had added a volume “sport” model, the Eldorado (it even appeared in GM corporate advertising with the Corvette and GTO). There wasn’t a pressing need for the standard coupe to deliver that image and catch that business that might otherwise go to a car like a Thunderbird or a Jaguar sedan.
The 66 Lincoln coupe, near perfection of a classy American coupe,
I think the stylists may have had the extra-cost vinyl roof covering in mind when the designed the C-pillar of this Coupe DeVille. To me this is a case where the car looks better with the vinyl top, as it breaks up the huge expanse of metal and aligns with the kick-up in the fender. Great way to sell an option that cost over $100 in 1969 (0ver $700 adjusted)….
The front is “regal and snooty” as I think Bill Mitchell once described a Cadillac. I remember a story about Bill giving his guys instructions for the 63 Cadillac. “What we’ve been doing is fine, but it could be a Chevy.” I can imagine him directing the same change from 68 to 69.
“Mother England”? I’ve a hunch that some time has passed since that phrase was last used Stateside.
You’ll still find people up here in Canada who use that term – but we’ve always been more closely tied to Britain than you Americans, after all we didn’t have a revolution to kick them out.
Canada did have a revolution, in 1837, but no one showed up.
(For fans of obscure Canadian history, this is funny, but true 🙂 )
What I find interesting about the article is this: for all the talk of snob appeal and of fancy luxury features, there was not a single reference to quality, either actual or perceived. It is as though the testers looked all around and saw cheapened plastic everywhere but were afraid to say it out loud.
The color take rate is fascinating to me and meshes with the 69 Cadillacs I remember seeing out on the road. Gold was indeed king then, but I would never have guessed that it was so far out front of the second choice hue.
I would guess that quality is assumed, and would only need to be emphasized in it’s absence. Also, in retrospect the boring safety dashes are seen as a retreat from the peak of the diecast chrome stuff, but I can imagine them being welcomed at the time as a pleasant change in fashion, like going for a plain weave instead of brocade.
Indeed. White coming in at #4 was a little eyebrow raising, but what’s really fascinating is black being far down the list. I thought that, traditionally, black and white have always been the number one and two colors for luxury cars. It certainly seems that way today, with light and dark shades of grey being number three and four.
And the added cost for one of those ‘Firemist’ colors at $132 ($929 adjusted)? Yikes! I don’t think even the Germans are charging that much for special colors.
The Lincoln Black Label line offers unique “Chroma” colors that retail for $1750.I’m sure the Germans charge even more for their special colors, not to mention how they charge just for basic colors beyond Black and Whites!
Hubba makes a good point. Our perspective today on the interior direction towards more plastic and less detail may be much different. This was a completely new style, using fairly new technology. Its lack of durability and less expensive construction may not have been as apparent as the fact that it was NEW, and we know how much newness was pushed as the most important thing in car marketing.
While a percentage of Volvo buyers in 1969 may have been able to buy a Caddy if they wanted it, Volvo was competing with Chevrolet for their business, not Cadillac. There was no chance that a Volvo 122 or 144 buyer was going to buy a Cadillac, and very little chance of buying a European luxury-sport model that was also significantly more expensive and flashy than a Volvo. If Volvo weren’t in business, those folks would have bought an Impala–that was Volvo’s actual competition for the purchase decision.
Most of the BMW volume was a 4 cylinder coupe that was an alternative to a GTO or an MGB. It only competed with Cadillac because a rich man might decide to buy a inexpensive sports car or ride a motorcycle. BMW buyers were choosing between BMW and another modestly priced sport model, not Cadillac.
I was struggling to come up with the right list of “luxury” imported competitors to Cadillac–or even include imports at all, as so many of the models on offer from overseas were so completely different–and in many cases much less expensive.
My Standard Catalog of Imported Cars does not break out model line production for any of the brands listed in 1969, so it is hard to even carve out the few cars that might have potentially appealed to a driving enthusiast/automotive pragmatist with a Cadillac budget, like the BMW 2800, Jaguar XJ, Mercedes 280 series, Volvo 164. I agree that there would have been minimal cross shopping with any of these and the Cadillac in 1969.
In GM’s defense, given the really small numbers of “luxury” import sales in 1969, you can see why the corporation really didn’t worry about overseas competitors. I wanted to include these European brands (of which BMW and MB are considered today’s luxury “standards”) to simply make the point that when it came to luxury for American drivers in the late 1960s, the import “threat” was truly in its infancy.
Both you and the magazine article mentioned that “Cadillac image” that people either loved or hated. Thinking back, my father shopped that price class more than once from the 70s to the 90s and I can never once remember him really pining for a Cadillac.
Was his strong preference for Lincolns because of his general FoMoCo bias? Or was it the fact that he grew up wealthy on the Philadelphia Main Line and picked up a subtle attitude that people of good taste and good breeding did not buy Cadillacs? Or was it that he always found a way to be stylish without following the biggest part of the crowd? Maybe all of the above, which resulted in a final score of Lincoln – 6, Cadillac – 0.
I once worked for a wealthy man as an office clerk/driver. I would drive his kids to/from school every day and often drove him to the airport and other appointments. He was a very nice person and we had some great conversations during my employment with his company. As part of being the driver I got to drive his Mercedes S-class (it was the mid-80’s). During one drive back to the office he was saying he was going to start looking for a new car for his wife. I asked him if he had thought about a Cadillac to which he answered “Too noveau riche!” The interesting thing about that answer was that his wealth was recently acquired – he was a University Business Professor who bought a small company that quickly grew.
It’s really interesting to think about people’s upbringing and motivations when it came to selecting car brands. I also think that for decades Americans were ultra-sensitive when it came to the “social signals” that car brands were making.
My Pop is an interesting case in point as well. His parents were divorced, so there were dueling car perspectives. Pop’s father (Granddaddy Will) only drove Fords–he would have considered Cadillacs frivolous and a huge waste of money. Pop’s mother (Wowo) and Grandmother (Dear) exclusively drove Buicks and would have considered Cadillacs very crass. But my Pop loved Cadillacs–I almost wonder if it was his form of rebellion against each of his parents and their sensibilities.
Even at the peak of his career, however, Pop never bought a Cadillac as he would have felt it didn’t “look right” from a business perspective. When he retired in 1989, he did finally buy one, but was wildly disappointed as the car was dreadful. It really burst his bubble.
Cadillac was indeed the king of luxury cars then, as the sales figures show. Nothing else was close. It’s hard to imagine today the power and cache the Cadillac name once had. It was truly an aspirational vehicle. Maybe it wasn’t the Standard of the World, but Americans thought it was. Among the well-heeled (and the wannabe well-heeled) this was it. Oh there may have been a few Lincoln diehards and even fewer Imperial fans, but for most of the luxury market nothing else would do. Buick owners might have sneered that their or Electras were just as good, and maybe they were, but they just didn’t have the exalted status a Caddy did. People who disliked them still knew they were something special.
Ah yes, that class distinction point of view.
At the risk of repeating myself here:
My Grandfather, an (almost) upper middle class business man & member of the local Chamber of Commerce, before the Great Depression of the 1930’s darn near wiped him out, mentioned this observation to me several times in my childhood of the 1960’s and 1970’s:
” ‘Old Money’ and people with quiet, conservative good taste buy Buicks and perhaps a Lincoln. ‘Nouveau Riche’, gangsters and politicians always seem to buy flashy, vulgar Cadillacs.”
Grandpop owned Packards in the 1930’s, switched to Buicks and Chevys later on, after he lost his grain & feed business. A Cadillac never was considered by him or my Grandmother.
Perhaps his words are why there are 3 older Lincolns in my driveway; but not one Cadillac?
During my elementary school years, we lived in a modest, newly built subdivision in Fort Wayne, IN. Most of our neighbors were young families with children, many moving rapidly up the socioeconomic ladder. Most garages contained two domestic cars, typically a GM full-size make and then something smaller, with an occasional Beetle being just about the only import make represented.
In at least three cases, a new Cadillac or Lincoln suddenly appearing in the driveway portended an upcoming move to the suburbs of Chicago, Detroit, Cincinnati or some other big city where strivers could make it big. All of this happened in the early 1970s, so I have certain bittersweet memories of these 1969-70 Cadillacs, as at least two childhood friends moved away within a year of their family’s acquisition of these cars.
We eventually followed, ending up in suburban Chicago. In our case, however, the key signifier was not a Cadillac but a Chevy Vega, which was purchased as a commuter car capable of getting high fuel mileage.
Thanks for another awesome piece and throwback article, GN. I am really digging that brocade interior; I wonder what was the last year / make / model that featured one.
The late 1960s really were “peak brocade” with a lot of choices. The other cloth option on the DeVille was “Delphine” which was more subdued but still had scrollwork.
Or you could splurge for a Fleetwood and get “Devereaux” brocade!
what a crazy idea to illustrate car seats as furniture ! 😉
Agreed, that is just hilarious! There’s not even a reference in the ad text to “like the finest home interiors” or somesuch. It just looks like the rug and the table and vase are options!
These cars were supposed to be “living rooms on wheels,” so it made sense. The ultimate goals were silence, comfort and convenience (i.e., power-assisted everything).
Interesting question about the “end of brocade.” For Cadillac, 1975 was the last year. I think that the trim style hung around a bit longer at Chrysler–IIRC there was a Newport trim for 1977 that still had a form of brocade.
You are correct. The brown 77 Newport my best friend’s dad bought (the Coffee Sunfire we have discussed) wore a parchment-color brocade cloth inside. I remember thinking at the time that it was kind of a throwback as the rest of the world seemed to have moved on to luxurious velours by then. Being the contrarian that I was even then, I liked it.
Here’s the Newport trim I was thinking of from the 1977 catalog. Looks like a few different choices of brocade were offered. The bottom brocade also looks to have been offered again in 1978, according to the brochure at oldcarmanualproject.com.
I remember catching a ride several times with a friend whose mother drove a 1977 Newport with the Williamsburg brocade interior in the same blue and white color scheme as pictured above. To protect this “fine” upholstery, the seats were hermetically sealed in clear plastic slip covers, just like the sofas in their living room. It was very uncomfortable on hot days when we were wearing shorts.
Haha – pay brocade, sit vinyl. Not really made the grade, yet.
This to me was Cadillac’s peak year. No mandated 5 mph bumpers, no emission controls other than a PCV valve and a vacuum switch here and there under the hood, excellent build quality, safety additions galore and simple yet eye-pleasing styling.
Throw on a set of plus sized grand touring radials and some decent gas shocks and it would be a pleasing highway cruiser today.
Actually Cadillac build quality had suffered by then compared to ’64, ’66 and even a ’68 that I spent quite a bit of time in. A friend’s ’70 was a definite step down, and hugely so compared to the ’64 in particular.Build quality of my own ’75 DeVille 4 dr by then was a mere shadow of earlier Cadillacs, but was still impressive to the average unknowing folks on the street at the time. At least I can say I owned one, a passage of sort for an American motorist. And lack of ultimate quality notwithstanding it was still a magnificent conveyance for the trip we took from MD to NC to TX to MT and back, a circuit of almost 4000 miles with a family of 5 aboard. It had opulent brocade and leather seats that were a pleasure to sit on, travel in true Cadillac style.
Nice article on a great car. Both Road Test and GN did a great write up on one of my favorite Cadillacs. i did’nt make that connection you made to the Land Rover GN……..it makes a lot of sense. People dont want german Cadillacs……they want what this article says The top of of the american car lineup a car that is world renowned as the best luxury car you can buy. thats the reputation Cadillac has ruined chasing and playing the euro game. the only vehicle Cadillac has that remotely resembles this is an Escalade………..and the powers that be at Cadillac still dont get it. anyway thanks for kicking off my monday with this great article GN!
Whatever modern rich people want, they *definitely* don’t want American Cadillac de Villes now, either, any more than they want to dress up like Henry the Eighth and Catherine of Aragon every day.
The Escalade is an example of why a traditional Cadillac is bad business today. The only way the Escalade has anything in common with the classic Cadillacs is that it’s an obvious signifer of Big and Rich. The actual luxury market doesn’t want those cars, stopped buying them in volume (esp younger buyers) and wouldn’t buy them if they could.
They stopped buying them because Cadillac stopped making them. you proved my point…….”The only way the Escalade has anything in common with the classic Cadillacs is that it’s an obvious signifer of Big and Rich”. there are plenty of people who would love to have a big brash caddy. lots of em just from memories of what their parents drove.
It’s been at least 40 years since successful educated professionals truly aspired to Cadillac instead of Mercedes. The actual rich people today whose parents drove Cadillacs have already buried their parents and have one foot in the grave themselves. Whatever *their* children want, it isn’t a traditional Cadillac Deville or anything remotely similar.
Again, the Escalade is a signifier of Big and Rich. A traditional big, soft Cadillac says Poor, Old, and Dumb now; Escalades already are headed there IMO. As Paul points out, Tesla already is where Cadillac needs to be in the prestige game after SUVs play out. The Next Thing will not be *any* Old Thing in any tangible way, except that it will be expensive and exclusive.
I’m hardly old, definately not poor and no where near a foot in the grave. Tesla is a poorly run company that is bound to flounder. While their accomplishments are really good………..they have not given the proper time for testing choosing to use their customers as guinea pigs………no thanks!! Naming a company after what is arguably the most genius mind to roame our earth is one thing…………Idolizing the man who robbed him as well as coutless other of their inventions is quite another. Escalades sell because they are Cadillacs as Cadillacs have always been. Your point is lost Cadillac does not need to be a Tesla wanna be………………look at what being a BMW wannabe has done. Cadillac needs to go back to its roots and modernize them to todays needs and it needs to wow the crowd again with love it or hate it looks.
The folks who actually buy prestige vehicles generally don’t agree with you. Lots of them are in businesses with the same finance risks as Tesla has.
Tesla owners generally are happy with their cars, even if you think they shouldn’t be.
Packard eventually died from a combination of market forces and corporate blunders. But it was America’s prestige car for several decades. If Tesla manages to dodge bullets and entropy for several decades in one of the world’s most competitive businesses,, they’ll have done pretty well by business history.
the allure of European-style driving dynamics was still in its infancy at the time, appealing only to the select few members of the automotive cognoscenti.
I would beg to differ. The great import boom that was building up all through the 50s peaked with a market share of 10% in 1959. This was a wide cross section of Americans who had tired of the overly-large wallowing fuel-slurping American cars. 10% was a very considerable section of the market, hardly just “automotive cognoscenti”. Even VW buyers loved the sporty handling of the time, and VWs were commonly entered in the very popular sports car events of the time.
There’s no doubt that the second import boom, which really kicked in during in the mid 60s, was just the second wave of what had started in the 50s. Some of these early import buyers may have switched to domestic compacts like the Corvair and such, but as European makers offered a wider range of cars in the mid 60s, including more upscale ones, these are what they were going for.
Keep in mind that import buyers always had higher educational levels, and their income trajectories were likely steeper than average. Meaning the Volvo or BMW buyer of 1969 was quite likely driving a VW or Saab or DKW in the 50s.
One thing is for certain: the well-educated buyers of imports in the 50s were NOT interested in cars like the Cadillac as they increased their incomes. The origin of the demise of Cadillac started in the 50s, by not being attractive to the young educated buyers then entering their car buying years, and reaching for cheap imports at the time.
Once could see this play out in college towns in the late 50s/early 60s, or in California in some areas. To my great surprise, Iowa City was chock-full of obscure import cars when we arrived there in 1960. And the great majority stayed with imports, and were soon driving Volvos, Saabs, BMWs and Mercedes in the later 60s.
And the same applies to the younger boomer cohort: they likely bought a used VW as their first car, and moved up that import food chain.
Cadillac buyers started buying Mercedes when they realized that the well-educated trend makers were driving them, and they wanted the same social prestige, so they started switching. But driving dynamics had little to do with it. A whole lot of those switching from Cadillacs to Mercedes were soon moaning about the hard seats, stiff ride, underpowered engines and feeble air conditioning. They would have been better served by a Cadillac. That is, until Mercedes and other imports improved these qualities in their cars.
BTW, excellent choice of the Range Rover at the end of the article. I would add Tesla. Cadillac has been barking up the wrong tree for decades now.
I agree with your point about the increasing number of people seeking out smaller, nimbler cars in the late 1960s, and should clarify that I meant for the higher priced luxury market, not the total market. Based on sales results, those desires were not yet impacting the traditional American luxury segment to a great degree in 1969. GM didn’t even need to bother paying attention, which ultimately proved to be Cadillac’s undoing.
Not just the late 50s. The dominant new/trendy thing in automobiles was the sports car and its offshoots. That started very shortly after the war. And yes, it was so influential in popular culture, well beyond the actual sales numbers, that GM (and Ford) very much did respond, with the 1953 Corvette and ’55 TBird.
And when the sports car boom expanded/morphed into the general import boom after 1955, GM (and Ford and Chrysler) did of course respond again, with the 1960 compacts.
The problem was that it was largely all for vain, because what they failed to understand was that the real essence and driving force behind the sports car/import boom was that it involved driving something very different than an American brand, even if it involved significant practical trade-offs.
Stephanie’s earliest memories of riding in a car are of her dad’s MG-TF. Now that was hardly a practical sole car for a young family. And he really wasn’t a sports car cognoscenti at all; he was mostly a faddist. And for the rest of his life, he bought exclusively imports, except out of desperation when he bought a Duster because it was dirt cheap and could barely fit all four of his kids.
My point is that the seeds of the destruction of Cadillac go back to right after WW2, when MG and Jaguar become the hot now objects of cool and prestige among the in crowed. And the in crowd always determines what the trends down market will eventually be, because eventually even the most modest folks want to not be left behind. It takes decades, or it used to.
Cadillac was doomed in 1946. And there’s really nothing they could have done about it. They were the symbol of what a growing segment of America was rebelling against. And that turned into a tidal wave.
I dunno about that. I think Cadillac completely blew it in the 1980s, but had the opportunity before then to adapt to luxury buyers’ changing tastes (which they botched). We’ve covered the 1st generation Seville a lot on here, but that car did manage to shift perceptions, proving that Cadillac could do “smaller” even if the cars weren’t world class. Unfortunately, they didn’t seem to really learn from the lessons of the Seville–both from market/dealer feedback as well as automotive reviews–to keep moving aggressively in that more modern, international (but still distinctively Cadillac) direction.
Had Cadillac kept its entire range fresh and sized right, kept prices high and invested in technology, better materials, etc. to keep a reasonably exclusive, decadent image going, they might have been able to more successfully navigate in the perilous luxury segment. Styling would have needed to be leading-edge, inside and out, and no compromises would have been acceptable on quality, performance, safety or the right sort of ride/handling balance that kept pace with shifting tastes. And high sales volumes would have needed to be sacrificed for the sake maintaining an image of exclusivity, with the added benefit of being able to charge higher prices. Sadly, Cadillac did none of these things, but I think that they could have if they had been paying attention and weren’t so greedy for short-term profits with associated corner-cutting.
For all the trendsetting automotive rebels for whom only imports would do, there were still plenty of rich, well-educated Americans who admired the Cadillac brand image up until it got too tarnished to even be recognizable anymore (which was ~30 years ago). Even around 1990, I think the market would still have embraced a genuinely world-class Cadillac had one been offered. Just as the right sort of affluent buyers snapped-up the world-class Lexus, dramatically changing the industry and proving that Japan could compete in the upper echelons of the market–which would have been inconceivable a few decades earlier. Of course, Toyota knew what it was doing, and figured out how to make cars for American expectations and tastes far better better than the homegrown makers did.
But I just don’t believe Cadillac was automatically pre-ordained to die post-WWII because certain buyers liked imported sports cars–the brand just needed to evolve to keep pace with their customers like every other brand/business ever created. Some can pull that off, but most–like General Motors–can’t. Cadillac’s arrogance was compounded by their enormous success–I think complacent, fat-and-happy businesses are the least likely to successfully transform with changing times. And in my opinion that was the fate that befell Cadillac.
I commend Paul’s alternative history about the 1965 Seville to you.
I think Tesla buyers are the same slice of the public that bought Packards 100 years ago. The image is wealthy, smart, forward thinking (and, again, wealthy and smart). That’s the neighborhood where almost every brand wants to live.
Did I mention wealthy and smart?
I agree with you and Paul that Tesla has carved out an enviable and unique reputation as a very aspirational, smart and desirable product. They are also very true to themselves–which I think is an enormous strength. Though Teslas are brilliant performers–fast, great handling–in no way do they come across as “wannabe European” but rather very contemporary, high tech and American. We’ll see what happens to the Tesla brand and business over time, but there is no denying how effectively they have transformed the luxury market–and they are arguably the current luxury market “status symbol” leader (with super high-tech innovation being the new, fashionable “style” among the wealthy).
Also, like the Cadillac brand circa 1969 as mentioned in the article, the Tesla brand is very polarizing, with people loving–or hating–what they represent. There doesn’t seem to be much middle ground….
All this talk of the buyer of Cadillac products at their peak is fascinating. Whomever it was who were buying Cadillacs, they sure bought a lot of them. What was Cadillacs peak sales year, anyway?
I mean, selling more Cadillacs than any of the competitors combined? That’s a lot of product. And not only a lot, it was a lot of the highest profit product, too. Say what you will about Cadillac and GM back in their heyday, but that’s impressive in anyone’s book.
And then they pissed it all away, beginning with the 1975 Seville. Looking at the feature car, who could have guessed that there would be a Cadillac that didn’t look all that much different from Chevolet’s cheapest car in 1982. Granted, the times were changing but slowly, bit by bit, Cadillac lost its luster and luxury leadership and, soon enough, would no longer be considered the ‘Standard of the World’ by much of anyone (at least anyone with any taste).
Cadillac’s US peak was 1978; Cadillac sales also boomed in the early 80s. Buick and Olds had comparable sales in the late 70s and early 80s.
The first GM brands to actually suffer from Japanese imports were Chevrolet and Pontiac in the early 80s; their buyers continued moving up the GM ladder and weren’t replaced. In the later 80s, the younger Olds and Buick buyers got converted to Camrys and Accords (fairwell, dear Cutlass), like their Toyota and Honda driving peers and younger siblings.
There’s been a lot of opinions about when Cadillac lost its MOJO and why, but one thing that I think backfired on them was their loss of exclusivity. More cars sold led to more profits but eroded the aura of owning a Cadillac. They stopped being cars of the super rich and started showing up new in more middle-class driveways. Just last night I saw a Cadillac commercial that ended by announcing that a new Cadillac could be financed for $499 per month. Financed? Real rich people write a check for the full amount.
In all fairness, it’s not just Cadillac doing this. A local billboard was recently touting a BMW 3-Series lease for about $360 a month. Even my family could theoretically afford that, and we aren’t rich.
Wasn’t Mercedes offering their lowest priced model as a $299 lease a couple of years ago?
The funny thing is that the vast majority of luxury cars are leased today, by rich and not-so-rich alike. With depreciation curves being severe and the status-seeking need to have a fashionable, late model car being paramount for the “in-style” crowd, leasing is the best option for many people. Also, given today’s electronics complexity (and rapid obsolescence), owning a luxury car is fraught with peril as time goes by….
Of course, to your point, the lower lease prices open up “luxury” brands to a much broader audience, but the sales “victim” seems to be the “mid-market” brands (which have mostly vanished), leaving only high-end and low-end brands to duke it out for customers.
Those leased cars get sold for cash three years later to people who usually have the cash/credit to buy the same car new if they want, or if they couldn’t get a car they like as a lease return.
The richest family I know well spends money on absolutely everything but new cars — huge family trips, weekends in Vegas, huge house, good wine most nights with dinner at home, on and on They pay cash for two or three year old lease returns of fancy vehicles.
There may be some question about the judgment of folks who take a lease payment to drive a car that’s probably a poor personal decision, but the overall number of asses and saddles still adds up fine.
I’ll as usual be the odd man out here. I never really got these cars, especially the two door versions. The cars were gigantic, but didn’t have much room in them. They went in a straight line fairly well, but any kind of bend sent them into billowing undulations.
I grew up in an area of twisty, windy and hilly roads. There were also quite a few wealthy folks. When I looked at the sales chart for 1969, I was surprised to see how many Volvos were being sold. Well, circa 1976 Vancouver Island, the Volvo was the car of the wealthy, especially the 164E. A huge car isn’t going to work too well in our conditions unless it has a buttoned downed suspension. This Caddy certainly didn’t!
Traditionally, Big Money actually lives and collects in cities, even when it’s made elsewhere. US cities were built with big, flat, straight thoroughfares, especially when it became clear that the wealthy doctors, lawyers and such who catered to that money wanted to commute in automobiles to their big new houses two or three miles from the old town center.
I must say: I am thoroughly enjoying the …spirited…points and counter-points going back and forth in this thread.
One of my favorite era’s of the Cadillac’s, I find it strange that the quarter mile times for this 1969 Cadillac (17.7 seconds @84mph) wasn’t much faster than the quarter mile times they’ve tested on a 1973 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham (17.6 seconds @80mph) on an April 1973 Motor Trend magazine they’ve tested considering the 1973 Cadillac was heavily strangled with smog pumps, emission control devices, a lower compression V8 engine and it weighed over 225 lbs more than this 1969 Cadillac
It’s hard to compare horsepower ratings because 60s ratings usually are “gross” and 70s usually are “net”. However, the 1971 Cadillac was rated both ways. The 1969 rating isn’t much different from the 1971 “gross” number and the 1973 rating isn’t much different from the 1971 “net” number.
But the compression ratio went from 10.5 in 1969 to 8.5 in 1973. That’s a pretty big hit and it can take its toll on real horsepower.
I do notice that the compression ratio went down to 10.0 yet there was no deduction in horsepower or torque for the 1970 model.
Displacement went up to 500 ci for 1970.
It would be hard to judge Caddys of this era by small differences of performance because they were first intended to be smooth. Cadillac would mask most kinds of noise and harshness, even at the expense of maximum acceleration and speed.
The 500 cid V-8 was only available in the Eldorado through 1974. Other Cadillacs retained the 472 cid V-8.
For 1975, Cadillac made the 500 cid V-8 standard across the board, except for the mid-year Seville.
10.5:1 for 1969, 10.0 in 1970, 8.5 in 1971-’73, 8.25 in 1974 and 8.5 in 1975-’76.
I always felt the net hp ratings for the 1969 Cadillac are somewhere around 250-260hp.
Cadillac has lost it’s aura and i hope they get it back.
One thing about the interior plastics of this era is how they don’t age well. Recently at a car show I looked at a 69 Fleetwood and when I poked my head in the window to check out the brocade seats the noxious chemical odor off gassing from the plastic almost knocked me over. I don’t know how the owner could drive in it, I couldn’t stand it for 2 seconds.
I can assure you that those 1969 plastics stopped off-gassing quite a few decades ago. I don’t know what you smelled, but it must have been something else. Strong air freshener?
Some above have mentioned that Cadillacs used to indicate truly wealthy people with a desire to show this wealth, though many preferred to keep it hidden. This is how I saw it in the ’60’s, and I’d add that Cadillacs always stood out because they were fairly uncommon.
Now it seems that “luxury” cars are quite commonplace and no longer so exclusive. Every third car seems to be a BMW, Benz, Audi, Volvo, Porsche, Lexus, Infiniti, Jaguar, Cadillac, Lincoln, Acura, etc. It may be due to advertising, social media exposure, the rise in two-income families, the lack of aversion to debt, more lease options, lower saving rates, or a plethora of other reasons. In any case, I’d suggest that if nearly everyone is displaying wealth, then nobody is. (Except of course those driving Bentley, Rolls, Ferrari, etc)
That’s a good observation. I grew up in a very affluent neighborhood- but Cadillacs and Lincolns were a rarity. One of each, as I recall- although the premium domestic brands (Buick, Oldsmobile, Mercury, etc) were quite common. Because it was So California, Mercedes was just starting to make inroads. They really weren’t luxury cars in the 60’s- more a thinking man’s alternative to a luxury car.
My mom was fond of saying- “if everyone drives a Mercedes, how is it supposed to be a prestige item?”
Having owned two 1969 Cadillac Miller-Meteor ambulances, which used the front-end sheet metal of this car, I can tell you that in 1969, Cadillac did use thicker sheet metal than all of the other GM makes. The hood, for example, was held to the hinges with three bolts on each side instead of two, and required two adults to lift (I know, I got one from the junkyard and had to bring my best friend with me to carry it). In comparison, the hood from my 1971 Ford LTD was easily lifted by me alone. I couldn’t believe the difference!
Another story – while driving through Moscow, Idaho down an icy hill (in second gear and pumping the brakes as rapidly as I could) in my ambulance, a lady driving a 1984 Toyota Cressida pulled out in front of me, and her rear wheels became stuck in the curb gutter, placing her car broadside directly in my outside lane. Having a car in the inside lane next to me, there was nothing for me to do but keep braking and slow down as much as possible before the impact (est. 2-3mph).
The lady’s daughter jumped out from the passenger side and ran over to me to ask me how I was (I was laughing because I didn’t even feel the impact, and was wearing both the factory lap belt as well as the (optional at that time) shoulder belt that I had installed out of a sedan).
We called the police to report the accident, but their response time on that wintry day was in the hours for a non-injury fender-bender so they told us to not expect to see an officer. I slowly backed up my vehicle to inspect the damage to her car and gasped – my LH fender front had split her LF fender in two, as though chopped open with an axe. The upper and lower points of the cast-metal Cadillac center grille trim had decimated the once-smooth sheet metal of the driver’s door, while the RF fender front point wasted the sheet metal on the Cressida’s driver-side rear door. It looked horrible!
We exchanged information and went on our separate ways. I should add that the driver of the Cressida was also uninjured; thank God I had slowed down enough.
A few days later, a representative of her insurance company called me and went down a list of questions for me to answer. When it came to the damage to my car, my answer was “none” (no joke). There was a long silence from the other side of the phone. I didn’t even see any paint damage on the front of my car when I inspected it later!
They don’t build cars like that any longer. If you ever get a chance to drive one of these pre-1972 high-compression Cadillacs, do it! You’ll be amazed at the power, and that review is correct about the brakes as well – they really hauled you down quickly, even on a 6500lb. ambulance. And build quality was pretty good, especially when compared to the malaise-era cars that followed.
One thing that is very apparent fro this discussion was just how much the buyer could personalize their new car. So many paint options, vinyl top colors, so many choices of seat fabric, leather and color. It was easy to put together a uniquely equipped example. The buyer could have a car that was different from the others in the executive parking lot. That meant a lot to high end buyers.
The other thing that stood out to me in the article, which I read at the time it was printed, was how much agreement there was in the motoring press and general public. In other words, it was generally agreed that the Cadillac was the epitome of the traditional American car. And by corollary every American car. It was THE car that most Americans wanted to own.
Now the market is fragmented, with many competing “luxury makes”, so many varied owner’s wishes and public perceptions that it has become impossible to be considered “the best”. Even the vaunted Benz has been dethroned.
I had a ’70 Coupe de Ville ( only 5-6 years old) and I can tell you that they went down the road like nobody’s business. An experienced and skilled Cadillac driver would slow to enter a curve, allow the car to take a “set” and power through the sweeper. The feeling was like driving a modern pick up truck or SUV. Heavy, but stable and extremely comfortable. Especially on long road trips.
I think that Cadillac could have remained more relevant through the late 70’s and into the 1990s. After all, The Lexus LS 400 was just a contemporary interpretation of traditional Cadillac virtues.
While a 60s Cadillac could be personalized with colors and fabrics, most Cadillacs were from one model line in your choice of two doors or four. The Cadillac store throws sedans, coupes, and SUVs at you today in a blizzard of shapes and sizes–in your choice of black, white, silver or gray. And there’s a red one coming next week.
I Love Cadillac’s Classics and some modern’s also. I have 78 Coupe Deville has 17K original miles just beautiful ! No it’s Not for sale
I also have 2013 Escalade EXT has 34K original miles No longer make EXT versions been told could Future collectable!
I’m partial to the ’69 as well-Happy holidays everyone!
This is a classic thread, well worth revisiting. Paul’s point on the beginning of Cadillacs end is interesting, however, the sales figures would suggest a very healthy business all through the 1970’s and into the 1980’s. I get Paul’s point though and it’s a valid one at that, isn’t interesting that often times a revolution comes from a most unlikely source, I’m sure the last thing the management at MG and Triumph were thinking was they were sewing the seeds for the demise of “the standard of the world” they would of been more focused on selling anything to the US to pay off that debt from WW2. So many other interesting points raised, the one regarding buyer demographic and how important image is to car ownership reminds me of English author Stephen Bailey who wrote a great book back in the 1980’s “Sex Drink and Fast Cars” in it he discusses how important the right car is in the heirachy of the business world and that a man is literally judged by the badge on the bonnet and the numbers on the trunk lid, and that a car outside of a very narrow parameter (BMW, Audi for management, Fords and VW products for sales) was unthinkable. Fun holiday reading
If I have not already said so, this may be the most beautiful 69 Cadillac I have ever seen given its color, trim, body style and condition. My interest in Cadillacs drops off rapidly after 1968, but this one would absolutely make the cut.
Late comer here. Very interesting article and discussion. I’m supprised that no one has metioned that during Cadillac’s decline during the 00’s, for a decade we had the Hummer. The replacement American symbol for welth, flamboyance, gluttany, and overindulgance.
Another one of GM’s self inflicted wounds on the Cadillac brand.
About 10 years ago I worked with a guy who had a new H2. He wanted to show it off but when I saw the interior I had to act, and I do mean act, impressed because it was the most ugly, uninspired, hideous automotive thing I had ever seen. Plastic chrome everywhere, and black plastic diamondplate pattern all over. Garish H2 emblems on everything. So sad. Almost made me feel sick to be in it, and to appreciate the comparative elegance of my then new- ish ’05 Taurus! The beginning of the current twilight zone of styling where gross is good and tasteful is laughed at.
I think those old school interior patterns and fabrics would be a cool option on the sterile gray/grey interiors on so many cars nowadays. But I have weird taste.
One component of this discussion that has not been touched on is racism. The reason why Cadillacs were considered flashy is not only that they were literally flashy with all of their chrome and embellishments, but also that Cadillac recovered from the depression by choosing to sell to african-american customers.
So WASPs (white anglo saxon protestants) who tended toward Packards, Buicks, Lincolns, Jaguars, and even LaSalle’s were in part turning away from Cadillac because of the clientele.
Whenever I hear one of our commenters say that Cadillac should have stayed exclusive, it grates on my nerves because 1) it almost killed Cadillac in the 1930s and 2) because “staying exclusive” is also a code-word for racism.
From Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/2009/04/30/1930s-auto-industry-business-cadillac.html#769fab9b19d2):
“In 1928 General Motors manufactured 1,709,763 vehicles in the U.S., of which 41,172 were Cadillacs. By 1933 GM production was down to a dismal 779,029 vehicles, a decline of more than 54%. But that year Cadillac sold only 6,736 cars, a decline of fully 84%.
“Cadillac was losing so much money that the only question was whether to kill it outright or to keep its name alive and wait for better times. The executive committee of the board of directors was meeting to decide its fate when Nicholas Dreystadt knocked on the door of the boardroom and asked to be heard for 10 minutes.
“Dreystadt was an unlikely GM executive. A gifted mechanic, by the early 1930s he was in charge of Cadillac service nationwide, a middle-management position of responsibility but no real importance in the politics of General Motors.
“But Dreystadt said he had a plan to make Cadillac profitable in 18 months, Depression or no Depression. The first part of his plan resulted from an observation he had made traveling around the country to the service departments of Cadillac dealerships. Cadillac was after the prestige market, and part of its strategy to capture that market was its refusal to sell to African-Americans. Despite this official discrimination, Dreystadt had noted that an astonishing number of customers at the service departments consisted of members of the nation’s tiny African-American elite: the boxers, singers, doctors and lawyers who earned large incomes despite the flourishing Jim Crow atmosphere of the 1930s. Most status symbols were not available to these people. They couldn’t live in fancy neighborhoods or patronize fancy nightclubs. But getting around Cadillac’s policy of refusing to sell was easy: They just paid white men to front for them.
“Dreystadt urged the executive committee to go after this market. Why should a bunch of white front men get several hundred dollars each when that profit could flow to General Motors? The board bought his reasoning, and in 1934 Cadillac sales increased by 70%, and the division actually broke even. In June of 1934 Nick Dreystadt was made head of the Cadillac Division.”
Great point, these parts of our history get glossed over all too readily.
Better read my comment below. Sometimes it’s good to gloss things over.
Be careful about what you read. There’s a number of fatal flaws in that article. In fact, it’s almost completely wrong in every way.
Cadillac sales in 1928 were 20,001. No way was Cadillac selling over 40k cars in 1928.
The depression played havoc on all sales, especially luxury brands. But sales jumped around like crazy, as some years things were looking up, other back down.
The low point for Cadillac (and everyone else) was 1932, not 1933. Cadillac sold 2700 cars in 1932.
In 1933, that actually increased significantly to 3,983 sales.
In 1934, it was up to 5819 sales (up 46%, not 70%), but everyone was up in 1934. What fueled Cadillac sales in ’34, in addition to an improved economy, was that the cars were all-new, and smaller and cheaper.
But in 1935, Cadillac sales plummeted back to 3636 cars! Lower than 1933, and not much better than 1932.
And so it went, up and down, until things eventually stabilized after 1938.
Nicholas Dreystadt was undoubtedly an excellent executive, but this piece sounds like a puff piece, and the stats are all wrong.
And here’s another problem: If African-Americans were buying so many Cadillacs through white front men, there’s not much reason to think sales would increase all that much if they could now buy them directly, eh? It’s not like Cadillac was putting out ads with blacks in them, or marketing to them. Yes, the buyers saved a couple hundred bucks, but that alone doesn’t begin to account for the wild swings in sales during the Depression.
And another problem: Why should a bunch of white front men get several hundred dollars each when that profit could flow to General Motors?
How would that happen? They just cut out the front guys who were making that money which was on top of the list price, but how was that now going to flow to GM? Charge blacks a couple hundred more??
It never fails to amaze me at all the misinformation one finds out there and gets passed around as fact. This story is also in Wikipedia now.
I just spent almost a half hour finding the actual production numbers for Cadillac in those years. Why? because the story didn’t make sense, especially about sales jumping so strongly by cutting out the middle men and selling directly to blacks. Not logical. And I knew that 1932 was the low point for all industry sales, not 1933. And that Cadillac reacted to the terrible 1932 sales by doing what all the luxury brands were doing: reduce the size and price of their volume (8 cylinder) cars for 1934. The V12s and V16s were just left to carry on for a few more years, but their sales were irrelevantly small anyway by this time.
Paul – For what it’s worth: that narrative about Cadillac sales to African Americans saving the Division does have legs. It’s repeated in William Knoedelseder’s new book on Harley Earl. Appreciate your fact-based counter arguments.
Like most stories that become myths, most likely there’s some degree of truth contained within it. The question is just how much.
We all like a heroic story. But it’s often not quite as simple as that.
I agree with Paul that this article is problematic in numerous ways. It is interesting though that article’s content has permeated the internet. A search for Nicholas Dreystadt comes up with all sorts of articles reference this same story.
I am not as familiar with pre-war history, but as I recall from Thomas Bonsall’s writings, Nicholas Dreystadt was noted for drastically overhauling Cadillac and making them profitable during the depression. That was his real claim to fame. The problem with Cadillac, and the other American luxury manufacturers in the depression was the inability to build a luxury car to a price point and remain profitable. In the roaring 20’s, the luxury market was flush, and high production costs were absorbed simply by increasing the sale price. The market had no issuing paying more. In addition, at this time, the luxury market had lots of volume which helped the profit per car to be quite substantial. This meant that production efficiencies didn’t really need to be taken into account.
However, with the drastic reduction in production numbers in the 1930’s and the shrinking of the luxury market, substantial profits per car became big losses per car. Production efficiencies were needed to become profitable, and old fashioned methods of production just didn’t work.
Packard tried to increase it’s numbers initially by introducing the “Light Eight” which lowered the entry level price point for Packard. While the car was a big sales success, it was a costly mistake for Packard. The Light Eight wasn’t much cheaper to build and it bled sales from far more profitable Standard Eight. In the end, despite the sales increase, the Packard lost far more money in 1932. The Light Eight was discontinued and the Packard had to rethink on how to increase sales at a lower price point while remaining profitable. That resulted in George Christopher from GM being hired, who completely overhauled the company’s operations. The lower priced Packard One-Twenty was introduced and able to be made at a profit.
Cadillac was watching Packard closely at this time and realized it too needed a drastic overhaul of how it did business to become profitable at the lower sales volume. It was Nicholas Dreystadt who was assigned to whip the division into line and this is how he turned Cadillac around and made it profitable. His changes lead to major consolidations and reductions in the Cadillac division, moving Cadillac to a lower price point with the Series Sixty and the end of the Lasalle division. At the GM corporate level this was also the time when the body sharing program came into play, with the “A” “B” “C” “D” body shells being introduced and shared to increase profitability.
So while there may be some truth to the fact that Nicholas Dreystadt may have been more open to selling Cadillac’s to African Americans, that certainly wasn’t what saved Cadillac. His major overhaul of the division which reduced production costs and increased profitability, and the overhaul of the Cadillac line-up to adapt to the new market place is what turned the division around.
Thank you Vince for adding the details and context I omitted or only referred to briefly.
The circumstances that the luxury makers found themselves in during the Depression would forever change that market and define their future success, or lack of it. Cadillac was in the best position to thrive, as it could increasingly share bodies and other expensive elements like the Hydramatic with the other mid-luxury brands at GM. The others mostly couldn’t, except for Lincoln, which drastically went downmarket with the Zephyr.
Cadillac’s springboard to its future success started right here.
So you believe it to be a myth?
Believe what to be a myth? There’s a lot of different elements in that story. You’d have to be more specific. The annual production numbers in that story are very much myths, compared to reliable sources (Standard Encyclopedia of American Cars and others). Yes, I believe reliable sales stats over unreliable/unbelievable/mythic ones.
If you’re asking whether selling to blacks saved Cadillac, no, I don’t think it was nearly as simple as that. But simple stories make compelling ones, hence their popularity. But it most likely helped, to some degree or another.
As to racism, it’s certainly laudable that Cadillac made that step, but it was very much a partial step. It was very well known that blacks were not welcome to come in the main doors of many large Cadillac showrooms, and that there were side and back doors for them to do so. And there was a back room for them to make their transactions. They were not welcome in the main showrooms. This went on all through the 50s and likely well into the 60s. This was not a company policy, but still, it hardly makes Cadillac a leader in breaking down racist practices by its dealers.
Just look at that Caddy’s interior – such a nice place to spend time! We need a lot more posh and plush and a lot less hard-as-a-rock and spartan in today’s vehicles IMO. I find most new vehicles to have seats so hard that after just 5 mins on them I am squirming.
THIS, THIS, THIS! It’s not just me!
It’s not just you Hardboiled!
These were probably when Cadillac was at its height as a luxury car. The ones that came after weren’t bad, at least not until 1981, but they were starting to lose their luster. I do seem to recall that when sales figures for various cars were reported that Cadillac (not counting the front-wheel drive Eldorado) managed to usually get in at the number 10 position in the late ’60s and early ’70s, in spite of their comparatively high price.
When I was in college there was a big, tall red-headed guy on a basketball scholarship who had a Palmetto Green metallic ’69 or ’70 Calais coupe. He must have been at least 6′ 7″ tall and I can’t imagine that there were many cars he would have fit in.
I hope that Paul can track down and reprint that road test from Motor Trend (I think), where they compared a fully-loaded top-of-the line 1973 Chevy Caprice Classic Coupe with a fully-loaded 1973 Cadillac Coupe deVille.
I’m convinced 1969 was peak Cadillac, at least in terms of both the allure and the quality of the product.
After other articles and comments here about Cadillac’s fate over the years, I paid particular attention to the Cadillacs on display on a recent visit to the Gilmour Car Museum (to which I had ridden in a friend’s recently-purchased 1959 Cadillac). Just based on the product, the story of Cadillac’s demise seems more complex than the tried-and-true “they screwed the pooch in the ’80s” tropes. Nor, do I find myself convinced by Paul’s “the die was cast at the end of WWII” hypothesis.
The 1959 we rode there in was ridiculous and brash (although the ride was superb-literally thought my friend was driving slow to hide mechanical defects, until I saw the speedometer about 30 mph higher than I thought).
The 1965 was, at least in terms of the interior, nicer than the ’59. I’d argue the styling was much more in line with the times and overall on point, too.
By ’75, though? Yikes! Ugly layout, cheap-looking plastics. There was nothing special in that ’75. Aside from being massive, there was nothing special outside of that ’75.
’77? Downsized, yes. Visible Cadillac lineage? Yes. Still, I’m not convinced there was much daylight between the downsized Caddy and some of the other GM brethren.
And then, of course, the ’80s happened.
Based on what I saw, 1969 was peak Cadillac. Obviously I couldn’t get in and touch or drive, but based on the numerous Caddies there to look at, it was all right there to see. The materials were top notch. That interior was amazing. The styling was right on point. I get why the reviewers were complementary.
And I think that’s the thing-Cadillac’s product had been on the downslide before the ’80s hit. 1969 was the peak, and they chose the wrong road from there.
Nor, do I find myself convinced by Paul’s “the die was cast at the end of WWII” hypothesis.
Your conflating two different things. Just because I feel that Cadillac’s eventual decline was predicted by events in the immediate post war era, it doesn’t mean that Cadillac didn’t still have many good years ahead of it.
FWIW, I would pin peak Cadillac at about 1965-1966, as interior quality took a very distinct drop in 1967, certainly so in the lower tier Calais, but noticeable in details in the other lines too.
By peak Cadillac, I refer to its ability to still have meaningful advantages over the competition from Mercedes and such, as well as its general level of quality and prestige.
Cadillac pursued ever-greater volume as the 60s progressed, and that combined with decreased material quality and improved import competition made the brand noticeably less prestigious after about that time. By 1970, when Mercedes added the 3.5/4.5 V8 to its W108 S Class, Cadillac’s peak was definitely over.
Peak allure, perhaps, but quality, certainly not. If you’d spent considerable time in pre-’69 Caddies you’d know this for certain.
Which 69 issue this article is from?
May 1969 Road Test. It says so quite clearly on the pages.
There are like 10 volumes for May 69 thats why. Would love to get my hands on one. Any weblink to the cover page would be great.
No, there’s only one May 1969 Road Test!
http://99wspeedshop.com.s3-website-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/roadtest.html
Which one this article is from?
I realize this is an old thread. But it amazes me that a discussion regarding one of the best vehicles the GM ever produced could be warped into a discussion of race… Anyway, this is a great article illustrating the quality instilled into one of the GREAT, last and best of class vehicles produced in the US. Beginning in the early 1970’s, the quality and value of all American cars was severely degredated. In the 1980’s this was even further realized due to a number of factors. No matter who or why they bought Cadillacs in 1969, the truth is that it was one of the last best brands of that era. People all across the world considered the Cadillac as an indicator that they were at the heigth of success (without due consideration to Rolls Royce and Bentley). Anyway, I’m gonna go grab a1969 Coupe de Ville Convertible this week. And while it needs some love… I’m gonna give it all it needs because it’s worthy and deserves it… And I deserve it… In the end, I will own a fine, classic American automobile, that not everyone else has… I already own a BMW and Mercedes. Anyone can own those, if they can afford a good mechanic… But I will own something unique, that represents a narrow snapshot of the greatness and external respect that America once commanded. I’ll take that any day! Lastly, any decent person of any race or other culture or country, will always be welcome to cruise in my Caddy!
I try to mention this here now and then.
Full sized luxury cars like this one, Lincoln and Imperial, were magical rides to generations of Americans.
These Americans grew up with rumble seats, bad roads, open cars, leather buckboards, road dust, flat tires and little to call a luxury.
Imagine a 59 year old driver in 1969. They fought in WWII, lived through the Great American Depression of the 1930s, their first car was a Ford Model T, and they took the train downtown and back.
Then they get into a Cadillac and find themselves going 75 miles per hour in an air conditioned silent luxuriously padded interior. It floats as if it was riding on air.
This is what Americans found magical in 1969. American manufacturers weren’t dumb about what they were defining as expensive cars in 1969 – its that their buyers were more impressed with cars that had what a Cadillac, a Lincoln, or an Imperial had – that they would have been impressed with a European car.
It took another 15 years for a new generation of Americans who hadn’t had to survive the early 20th century, to expect more than what America’s luxury cars were traditionally offering.
Please excuse the question of a simple minded greenhorn – but what are “Firemist Colors” ? Is it just another (sales) term for metallic paintwork?
Yes, in classic US marketing-ese. Like what Mopar called “Sunfire”.
Thanks.
The calculated price of $50,815 in May of 2015 would be $64,097 today. That’s about what a new Toyota Tacoma TRD Pro costs today, up from $50,740 last year. Things that make you go hmm.
This is when I wish there was an edit feature. The price of $50,815 for the 1969 Cadillac was from May of 2018, not May of 2015.
If only Cadillac had adopted this refined and timeless ’73 LaSalle/Seville proposal then backed it up with some truly contemporary engineering like OHC, IRS, FI etc, a restrained and ergonomic interior using the best quality materials and assembly they were capable of inside and out, then priced it like an S-Class, and subsequently over time made continuous improvements ala Toyota into the late ’70s and ’80s, Cadillac could have certainly reclaimed their “Standard of the World” crown. Could have.
But instead, after the dreadful ’71 to ’76 barges, their lukewarm turnaround attempt via the downsized ’77-79 C body Cadillacs just wasn’t enough, and even worse we got clownish crap like the “bustle-back” Seville imitation of a 1930s Rolls, junk like the V8,6,4, 4.1, dying diesels, and 4.1 V8. They well deserved to lose the respect of the discriminating auto buying public. In retrospect it’s hard to believe how many mistakes GM made, and even so it took a lot to bring down a once admired brand, but they managed to do it.