Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not hatin on the 77 on up years as they still look nice in a classic Cadillac design sense, but no matter how good they might of been, there's no denying that they just weren't as smooth as far as the ride quality, in reliability, and performance is concerned as the older Cadillac's were.
The Pre 77 Cad's felt like tanks, they were strong cars, you never worried about anything really breaking on them as every part was heavy duty. I wouldn't hesitate taking a 75 Cadillac Deville across country with that huge 500 engine and Turbo 400 trans as I would on maybe a 83 Coupe Deville. Nobody has mentioned the cheap filler GM used on all those cars for the bumpers that cracked and fell apart that looked horrible. I don't understand why they used that cheap filler when rubber should've been in place like Ford used on the Lincolns in the 70's and 80's which worked great.
That's one thing that I notice the difference on, the Lincolns of similar vintage had better body sound insulation that Cadillac's. The sheetmetal and exterior trim was higher quality on the Lincolns during these times as well.
I do like the 80's Regals and Lesabre's, they're pretty cool lookin.
My Father had a 73 and an 83 coupe Deville, both cars were tanks. The 83 was far more relaible then the 73, got way better gas mileage and rode just as nice. It never left us stuck anyway, always started right up, as opposed to the 73' which had to be towed a few times. Granted he purchased the 73' in 78 0r 79' and may have been buying someone else's headache, but the 83' was purchased new. We took that car everywhere. My Dad used it everyday for almost 8 years, then it was mine and I used it everyday for about 3 years. It had 112,000 when it finally died.
We never had an issue with the rubber fillers. It was my first car and they still looked brand new the day I sold it off. I think it was a combination of the car being garaged kept and my Father and I always washed and waxed it on a regular basis. Even the interior was prestine. No rips tears or worn out leather, the headliner was still in place, the landau top looked brand new. Like everything else maintenance is the key.
Yea, the 4100 was under powered. I had the main bearings replaced to get rid of the slight knock they all developed, replaced clean out the upper oil return tubes as well as cleaning and adjusting the valves when I had it. We never did a cam on it like so many people needed. That little rebuild gave the motor a lot more life.
let me ask you guys question about mpg on a 73 Cadillac
Consumer Reports hadn't tested a Cadillac since '68. that 68 Cad got 7-15 mpg in normal driving and 11 mpg on a long trip
the 73 Impala wagon(the closest car to the Cad) with the 400 got the same readings as the 68 Cad
so do you think the 73 Cad would be the same or gulp even more fuel?
and as far as the Imperial, the 73 New Yorker with the 440 got 8-16 in normal driving and 13 a long trip which CR's said was "surprisingly good considering the engine's size and power"
the Imp was not tested but would you assume that the extra 300-400 lbs or so over the New Yorker would drop the mpg down to Cad and Lincoln levels?
would you say that this Imp rode as smoothly and quietly as the Cad and Lincoln?
a Motor Trend test of this beast found the Imp to be slightly flawed in terms of "wind and tire noise, while not excessive, was detectable...inexcusable for a vehicle of this price range and expression of domestic art"
if this was so, do you think anyone riding in this car would really notice?
would you say that this Imp rode as smoothly and quietly as the Cad and Lincoln?
a Motor Trend test of this beast found the Imp to be slightly flawed in terms of "wind and tire noise, while not excessive, was detectable...inexcusable for a vehicle of this price range and expression of domestic art"
if this was so, do you think anyone riding in this car would really notice?
Today people would view the handling and ride of those cars alot different then they would when they were new and for sale on dealer lots back in the day so it is hard to answer.
I mean assuming that similar equipped Lincoln and Cadillac's both outsold the Chrysler Imperial by a large margin says show it may have been a factor for the buyer back then.
but then on the other hand Cadillac and Lincoln had more cache then Chrysler that may of also played a factor in the buyer decision as well.
let me ask you guys question about mpg on a 73 Cadillac
Consumer Reports hadn't tested a Cadillac since '68. that 68 Cad got 7-15 mpg in normal driving and 11 mpg on a long trip
the 73 Impala wagon(the closest car to the Cad) with the 400 got the same readings as the 68 Cad
so do you think the 73 Cad would be the same or gulp even more fuel?
and as far as the Imperial, the 73 New Yorker with the 440 got 8-16 in normal driving and 13 a long trip which CR's said was "surprisingly good considering the engine's size and power"
the Imp was not tested but would you assume that the extra 300-400 lbs or so over the New Yorker would drop the mpg down to Cad and Lincoln levels?
My Father said he would get 6 to 7 mpg city about 12 hwy. I'm not sure how big the gas tank was.
My Father said he would get 6 to 7 mpg city about 12 hwy. I'm not sure how big the gas tank was.
My '69 Fleetwood Brougham and '76 Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine get 10-11 mpg. I once recorded 12.5 mpg with the limo on a relatively long freeway drive (to Irwindale and back).
The gas tank is 26 gals for the '69 and 27.5 gals for the '76.
I always loved the interior of the 73' Coupe Deville. The long sweeping speedometer, the winshield washer controls on the door. The climate control on the driver side so no passengers could mess with it, the window lock out so mo one could play with the windows. Even the radio was situated near the driver. The driver had complete control.
i always noticed that the early 70's Cad's gearshift levers on the column in the "P" position was at the 12:00 position as opposed to the 1:00 or 2:00 position on other cars. but starting in 74 the gearshift levers started to look more like Chevy gearshift levers with the round knob and they no longer parked at the 12:00 position. i wonder if that was just a fad or an actual mechanical reason for that
i always thought that the grilles of the 73 Cads and grilles and rear lights of the 73 Electras just reeked of snob appeal and aggressiveness. the Electra looked like an aggressive shark. i remember our neighborhood bully's family had a red 73 Electra with a white vinyl roof. his whole family was nasty and aggressive. they sure picked the right car to match who they were
by contrast i didn't see this shark like aggressiveness with the Olds 98 or Pontiac. the 98's seemed to more like an "old money" type of snob appeal (rather than aggressiveness) and the Grand Villes' seemed geared more to sporting than snobbery at least IMO
the Merc Marquis' seemed to focus on stateliness and handsomeness while the New Yorkers tried to be a cross between the GM cars and Mercs
this is what gave cars character in those days
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
