Teach Me About Giant 60s Cadillacs

Keith Tanner said:

You wouldn't be the first. There's an acre of room under hood, but the tunnel is small. Fitting that trans is a challenge to my understanding. 

I'd love to do an EV conversion on one. 

Move the engine forward to accommodate the trans?

I'm apparently the only one that likes the 68 better.....

I'd love a 12v Cummins swaped one. Seriously.

Keith Tanner said:

You wouldn't be the first. There's an acre of room under hood, but the tunnel is small. Fitting that trans is a challenge to my understanding. 

The Super Hydramatic transmission was actually pretty big, so something a TH400 should fit in the tunnel without too much trouble.  The real problem is a modern transmission like a 4L60E is huge.

Antihero (Forum Supporter) said:

I'm apparently the only one that likes the 68 better.....

No I love 68s also.  I almost bought a 68 Coupe a few months ago.  It's kind of the best of both worlds but everyone should own a true finned Cadillac at least once in their life.

I'm personally not a fan of the later 60s caddys.  The style just doesn't fit in my brain.  They had the Harley Earl years from the 50s and carried it beautifully through 62.  60 and 61 were just excess and everyone craves them for the monster fins so they pay massive dollars for them.  62 to me was just perfect.  Straight angled fins that were definitely a statement but tied in with the long-straight lines of the car, then the front end was a perfect integration of rounded, bubbly bits.

I feel like (without Harley Earl anymore) they kept just tweaking and playing with a strange combination of bulbous, angular oddity and never got it quite right.  They remind me of the early 90s F150 which can only be described as being inspired by B-rated sci-fi movies from the 80s.

62 is my perfect year for Caddys.  My second go-to would be the early 70s.  My great uncle had a 73 Deville.  Now THAT was a boat.  It was actually a few inches shorter than my 62 SDV, but it was wider, and proportionally looked like an aircraft carrier next to mine.

I suppose if I were to do it again, I would do a 62 SDV with a 500 and a switch-pitch TH400 transplanted into it.

I think the mid-60s cars (like my 66) have very cohesive styling that's remarkably clean. The space age/atomic age excesses are done and the clumsiness of the 70's hadn't happened yet. There's no bulbous front end fighting with clean fin design, it looks like a final result instead of a car halfway through transformation. 

But hey, the nice thing about Cadillacs of that era is that if you don't like one, you only need to move one or two model years and it's quite different :)

I'm going to be an outlier in this thread, but IMHO the 1960s Lincoln Continental was way cooler....

In reply to wspohn :

I always thought they were cool until I lived in L.A.  Those suicide-door Contis are like the Honda Accord of classics.  Every time I would catch a classic ride out of the corner of my eye I was like "ooh, classic ca... nevermind.  Just another continental."

Hypothetically, how much am I missing out on if I purchase some other 60s full size sedan instead?  There's a '69 Caprice that has caught my eye.

And shame you did not ask about this a couple years ago when I had that gigantic sedan DeVille with the 8.1 sitting in my uncle's yard for sale. Literally you could camp in the trunk of that thing!

In reply to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ :

Cadillacs are just another level up.  Anyone can buy an old Chevy but only someone with style buys a Cadillac.  The Chevy will be more simple to work on and have less advance for the day systems to break but neither will be a horrible to work on.

My idea has always been convert the Cadillacs (1956 Series Sixty and 1967 Coupe DeVille Convertible) to electronic ignition, install a Holley stand alone fuel injection setup on it and update the electrical. 

Then drive them everywhere.

In reply to Stampie (FS) :

I have never been accused of having style.   That said, I understand the "they're cooler because they just... are" argument- I think I need to make a trip to look at the '68 DeVille and the '69 Caprice back to back and see the difference for myself.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ said:

Hypothetically, how much am I missing out on if I purchase some other 60s full size sedan instead?  There's a '69 Caprice that has caught my eye.

In the 60s, it seemed like there was a much larger gap between the plebeian cars and the caddys.  These days, everything has power seats, power windows, cruise, and many of the luxury options.  Today, what separates a Caddy from a Chevy is the body work and the engine.  Back in the 60s it seemed like the Caddy was so much more luxurious compared to the Buicks and Chevys of the world.

I don't think you'll be missing out on the driving experience.  They're all huge marshmallows.  I think the neat part about the Caddys from the 60s was that they did a lot to differentiate themselves from the other GMs.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ said:

Hypothetically, how much am I missing out on if I purchase some other 60s full size sedan instead?  There's a '69 Caprice that has caught my eye.

The Caprice was the top of the Chevy line, so it had the plushest interior and often more options than an Impala or Biscayne.

My opinion is that the Impala or Caprice were big American cars that helped to define American excess.  The Cadillacs were just more of that excess pushing them to be excess squared.  Not that much different than todays Suburban can be loaded but it is still just a Suburban compared to the eceses of an Escalade.  

Personally, my great uncle from Boca Raton, FL would visit us in the summers and he would arrive in an all white, no vinyl top, 1974-ish Fleetwood.  It's all white, smooth body and doors separated by a b-pillar made it look like a 747 airplane w/o  wings.

Sample: 

Cadillac took "Standard of the world" seriously at that time. 

It's not the same company that made the Cimmarron. 

Of to Craigslist to look at Cali Caddys. 

are there any Caddy parts that if broke can leave you on the side of the road for a long time , 

things like one year only suspension parts or steering box ?

I always liked the big square body look of the later cars. Kind of a bad boy blues brothers rat rod vibe. Really would like to do one up leaving it mostly stock looking on an Art Morison frame. Keep the ride night stock maybe up size the tires and rims but keep them looking like the original hubcaps. Not sure if I would keep the original big block motor or go modern with a modern trans.  Depends on what I would be starting with. 
 

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to wspohn :

I always thought they were cool until I lived in L.A.  Those suicide-door Contis are like the Honda Accord of classics.  Every time I would catch a classic ride out of the corner of my eye I was like "ooh, classic ca... nevermind.  Just another continental."

Damn I barely saw them when I was living there. And when I did they weren't running. Maybe saw 2 or 3 in the 3.5 years I lived there. I did find one rotting on base in the RV lot, the squirrels took over. 

californiamilleghia said:

are there any Caddy parts that if broke can leave you on the side of the road for a long time , 

things like one year only suspension parts or steering box ?

I'd say the biggest thing is brakes.  They tended to change every couple years in the 60s and early 70s so parts availabity is more limited.

Caddies ain't no MG.  They changed styling EVERY year (especially in the earlier years) which means there is not a lot of non-mechanical parts crossover, which means cosmetic stuff can be very pricey (compared to "normal" cars at least).

Just make sure to price out any missing parts before committing (unless you have no interest in restoration)

I have a friend with a number of early Caddies, including two limos, which yes, have a lot of unique parts (commercial chassis) compared to even the same year normal Caddie.

My vote is for '68.  The best engine (472) with the stacked headlights.  The '69 and up are butt ugly in my opinion and that includes Eldorado.  '68 is a sweet spot.