After watching a bunch of old vintage YouTube videos of different GM makes and models from the 1930’s-70’s, it’s interesting to see how much time and preparation it took to assemble each car, yet it all worked in harmony. In your opinion, how were Cadillac bodies/frames and it’s build quality superior not only compared to it’s divisional rivals, but it’s main competitors in the luxury field market place?
I ask from your own personal experiences as I am too young to know the differences as a Millennial. But I’ve owned my fair share of Cads over the years. ;)
I understand that Cadillacs depending on the years, had lower production therefore, more emphasis was put into making sure each car that left the plant was built to a very high standard. But in general form, underneath its skin is a basic body and frame that was shared among GM’s divisions specifically Chevrolet and Buick. Could one tell back then that a Cadillac was truly a superior car to say a Buick or an Olds in terms of build quality, ride and performance when they shared the same basic frame design?
On a similar note, how did Cadillacs construction choices compare to Chrysler Imperials, Packards, and Lincolns of the 50’s-70’s? It’s interesting how Cadillac moved from a very solid and massive frame that combined the likes of the X-frame with a perimeter frame from the late 1940’s-1956, then I believe in 1957, Cadillac switched over to simply an X-Frame for lower seating and ride height. Did this choice of frame construction make the later cars less strong, and ride not as smooth or as solid feeling compared to its predecessors even with the old leaf springs?
The body-on-frame Imperials of the 60’s were considered one of the strongest constructed cars of its time, probably still is to this day, but were they better cars than a Cadillac of the 60’s? To a lesser extent Lincoln Continentals were all unibody from the late 50’s up until 1969. Those unibody Lincoln’s were tanks on wheels, very solid and heavy cars, but they suffered from severe rust problems in common areas, and many of their engineering choices left a lot to be desired as they were unreliable in many categories. Plus since they had no frame, the bodies didn’t isolate road shock all that well. What are your guys thoughts on that?
When compared to a truck, it seems to me that back then Cadillacs built up to the late 70’s, were overly capable of truck like capabilities. I think we take our full-size, BOF Caddy’s for granted today, because a modern full-framed sedan has been gone for a decade now. The Lincoln Town Car seized to exist after 2011. Everything made today is of unibody construction which will never ever be as strong or as capable as a full-frame vehicle. We’re in a time when everything has to be environmentally friendly, thus using recycled materials, lightweight materials, less toxic materials to build a vehicle that will never be built and feel as solid as a Cadillac from a time when excess and zero compromises was expected from the automotive buyer.
For one, Packard was defunct by '58. Pre-war a main "C" competitor. Lots of ideas about why they busted, but sum of many reasons. GM ate their lunch more or less. I own a '49 "P" has the tell tale X-frame of the day.
There's a lot more industry common parts that the general public doesn't understand. There's common parts suppliers throughout auto history. Except for the earliest days, no one brand made all the parts for their models. AC/Delco, FOMOCO/autolite, MOPAR being the biggest. But Wagner, etc. and others supplied. eg; My "P" has delco ignition. Others same year might be Autolite. Now it's all scrambled with spinoffs and mergers, imports.
The early frames are actually more dangerous. Lots of highway carnage when Eisenhower highways came to be increasing speeds and before '64 and the highway safety act, seat belts of '68. Tended to not absorb impact energy, and launch occupants through the windshield. I had relatives that survived. Good news not as many cars then.
You can make a valid suspension strength comparison, with the "big GMs" that had 15" wheels compared to 14" for most other brands. Anything inter-brand is clouded with personal biases. Styling is a personal thing. Reliability is not subjective, but accessing records/hard data is difficult. Manufacturers don't disclose for competitive, image reasons. Govt has some but doesn't disclose by brand necessarily, groups.
Beyond that you're speculating.
It is also hard to say reliability when the 60s cars came with a 30 day warranty.
The entire front end of my 61. Fenders inner fenders hood grills, mount to only the firewall. And one central body mount under the radiator core support.
I have heard people argue that with the x frame the A pillar would crack at the room line. I did see a lead joint on my car crack there.
I see a lot of people try to hunt down rear window leaks that could be from old seals or body flex.
In your opinion, do you think Cadillacs were built better, stronger, on par, or less so vs it’s rivals?
Mainly Imperials and Lincoln? This can be anywhere from interior quality, to ride comfort, styling and overall design.
Packard didn’t survive long, so we can exclude them unless someone would like to compare it to Cadillac.
Built "better". No. Really it only had different styling and features.
If your talking 50s and 60s and base coupes and devilles they had the same construction as anyone else. All vinyl and fabric seats zig zag springs for support. The door and trim panels were cardboard big fit and finish gaps everywhere and the stitching was not straight.
When you went to Fleetwood or eldorado you got pocketed coil spring seats. And started getting leather.
What set Cadillac apart was styling. Which is subjective. And what features came standard.
But Cadillac often was not the first with those features. GM regularly used Oldsmobile as a test vehicle for a new feature. After it was proven they would make it an option or standard equipment on Cadillac.
Now Cadillac did have a high compression engine which not everyone had. But you asked body and frame.
And a lot more trim and chrome. But you have to ask. Is adding that trim making it better quality. Does putting a lot jewelry on a 70 year old women make her better then take your pick.
I can add that the Cadillac frames from the 40s (perhaps way earlier) to at least the 80s were sourced from AO Smith. AO Smith is known to many as a maker of decent quality tank-based domestic hot water heaters here in the USA. I was quite surprised when I read about this years ago. And AO Smith may have provided frames to other GM makes...(WikiP says over 100 million car frames produced by AO Smith as of the early '80s) Not sure who supplied frames to the the competing OEMs that are referenced above.
Not sure this clarifies anything surrounding your questions. My understanding aligns with the other posters in terms of Cadillacs being of finer style/design and bedecked with more fine automotive "Jewelry" (trim) in comparison to other makes (IMHO). Brand image based on the customer demographic generally served by Cadillac also played a part in Cadillac's illustrious history and consumer demand, per se. As a GM assembly worker, at least in the 30s through the 70s, Cadillac was THE DIVISION to work for in General Motors.
Not going to go into a "Cadillac is better than everything else" diatribe. Completely subjective, yet we are here for our own appreciation of these fine Cadillacs!
I had always "heard" that Cadillac got the best "assemblers" as they were treated well. Since you were there . . . any truth to that?
I am only familiar with the union assembly workers from the 70s to 90s. My family members all worked in GM assembly positions. My Great Grampa was a shop foreman in the 60s for buick city. Judging by them I would say no. For the most part GM did not decide on where their employees worked. The union members themselves picked their jobs based on seniority. So if the Cadillac line was a slower easier line then more senior union members may have selected to work there. But seniority never really takes into account talent. They could have been more experienced because they had been with the company longer. But not necessarily better.
It seemed to me that Chrysler was an engineering powerhouse in the 50’s, more so than GM possibly. But their cars didn’t sell as well vs popular GM makes. But they did have that cool push button transmission and swivel seats in the Imperials.
I enjoy all my current and previously owned Cadillacs and think that they are awesome cars. Although this is a Cadillac forum, I try not be so biased in favor of Cadillacs, but it’s hard not too. As I also own 2 Lincoln’s from the late 70’s, and having owned a 61 Lincoln Continental for many years.
My Lincoln’s are all great cars, and are built well. Things I do hate about them is that they tend to share a lot of more components with other Ford cars and they make sure you know it too, and their electrical components suck and are unreliable, but Lincoln’s drivetrains in the 70’s are just as bulletproof as Cadillacs and their body and frame construction is extremely tight and solid. I still believe to this day that my 78 Continental is the smoothest riding, most comfortable car I’ve ever owned. And I’m more of a Caddy lover at heart too, but I have to give praise where it counts even if it isn’t popular to say especially on here.
I admit that both brands had their strengths and weaknesses back in the day. But I think Cadillacs depending on the years, looked better than it’s competition. Much more flamboyant cars overall besides for maybe the Imperial. The 40’s, 50’s and 60’s is where Cadillac truly shined. Their styling and build quality was top notch. My 72 Cadillac SD was my least favorite Cadillac, great performance and was reliable, but too many squeaks and rattles ( poor build quality) , it didn’t ride all that great, and crappy low quality trim lead me to sell the car.
On the other hand my 68 Cadillac CD was superior in every way to that 72. It was built much better and felt more solid, nicer interior, better styling etc... So it seems like Cadillac sort of regressed during certain years? My 87 Brougham was a nice car, I loved the interior quality and the way it looked, but didn’t ride as smooth and soft as my old Cadillacs, and the body just didn’t sound as silent or was as isolated and tomb quiet, like my Lincoln’s are.
You're talking about the era when GM accountants embraced plastic over traditional materials. It really was a big change.
OTOH, the plastics that were used early on were high quality (for plastics). I don't worry about disassembly of anything on my '74. My '94 Corvette? Anything I touch will have to be replaced. In comparison, the plastic components on a 90s Mazda Miata last forever (just like the earlier GM stuff). Bean counters can do a lot of harm.
The worst is probably 90s German, which is full of plastics and wiring which are intentionally designed to bio-degrade. Greens are worse than bean counters.
Quote from: hornetball on January 23, 2021, 10:19:16 AM
You're talking about the era when GM accountants embraced plastic over traditional materials. It really was a big change.
OTOH, the plastics that were used early on were high quality (for plastics). I don't worry about disassembly of anything on my '74. My '94 Corvette? Anything I touch will have to be replaced. In comparison, the plastic components on a 90s Mazda Miata last forever (just like the earlier GM stuff). Bean counters can do a lot of harm.
The worst is probably 90s German, which is full of plastics and wiring which are intentionally designed to bio-degrade. Greens are worse than bean counters.
Funny how you mentioned plastics, because you’re right, the later GM cars especially in the 90’s was horrible!
My 94 Fleetwood was pretty bad, especially the lower dash panel that was very flimsy as the clips broke off and I had to screw in 2 screws in order for the panel to stay in place. The cloth covered A pillar plastic was always pretty cheap and creaky when pressed on.
On the other hand, my 87 Brougham I used to own, had plastic/vinyl everywhere, but it was nicely finished and was much more sturdy than my 94 Cadillac Fleetwood.
The older Cadillacs, depending on the year, the vinyl and leather held up much better than what most people would expect out of an old car. I truly believe these cars were built to last a lifetime if kept up well. Modern vehicles with even cheaper quality plastics and composite, lightweight parts, most likely will not hold up 50 years from now. The ECM units and modules like all computer components simply wear out from excessive heat, moisture and extreme cold.
The older American cars probably from the late 70’s down, were mechanically sound if the owner took the time to maintain them. They were simple and easy to work on, and were built strong and tough with BOF construction big V8, RWD, you can never go wrong with that setup.
In case of an EMP attack, when all modern cars will probably stop working completely, I can throw points back in my 64 Cad and drive wherever I need to go. 8)
I brought this up before.
Oldsmobile added to the x-frame in 1959, due to concerns of side body collisions.
For 1959, the Oldsmobile line-up was completely redesigned. However, unlike other GM makes (such as Chevrolet and Cadillac[17]) Oldsmobile continued to use a full perimeter frame, instead of the GM X-frame.[
So much for the standard of the world, while cosmetics are nice was the engineering always better? Who knows but here is one example.
Actually two differences ,since the anti-spin differential was not on the Cadillac but the Oldsmobile had it. Some may not care about the need for this but it is a nice option to have in the day, especially in the snow climates for the winter when one wheel starts to spin. I have two Oldsmobiles with it a 1959 and a 1964 and they still work fine. Just a fresh rear gear oil change and some additive and all working fine. I change all my rear differential oil and will never do it again in my lifetime unless I have a rear end issue. Every time I have done it the oil was black as all (RWD cars from 1959 to 1984). A small price to have piece of mind. Short money. Also lubes the rear wheel bearings too, why not.
Here is a link for those who want to see the difference in the 1959 frame and rear end, since the image was not a Cadillac!
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/Canada/Oldsmobile/1959%20Oldsmobile%20Brochure/image14.html
There was also a difference in the metallurgy of the engine blocks,
Block Metallurgy
Yes the nickel content is what makes the early Old's blocks, and Olds blocks in general, so strong. This is readily apparent if you use a rotary file on the block or heads. Low nickel engines (cheby is prime example) are very easy to take metal off while high nickel engines (like Olds) will take twice as long to remove the same amount of material. Prime example is when you machine the main caps for the strap and stud kit mine came out looking like a mirror (you could literally see your reflection!).
Differences from Other GM Nameplates
In the 1960s and 1970s, Oldsmobile engines were unique from Buick, Pontiac, Chevrolet and Cadillac engines. Oldsmobile blocks were cast from nickel-alloy iron, which made them both stronger and lighter than Chevy blocks. For this reason, Olds blocks were popular with drag racers. Even so, Chevy small blocks dominated the performance and racing industry because they were plentiful and relatively inexpensive.
Interesting, that frame looks to be very solid, even more so than Cadillacs regular X-frame.
Could have been cost, who knows I simply don’t understand why Cadillac didn’t use a frame like the Olds which looks to be safer and sturdier.
Cadillac did strengthen the rocker panels on the X-frame Cads, but I am not sure if that made a big difference.
Such as vast change from my 54 to the 64. The 54’s frame looks to be much stronger than the 64. The body panels are also much sturdier feeling. You could throw a baseball at the front end of the 54’s hood and it probably wouldn’t even make the slightest dent on it. I honestly don’t think I could say the same about the 64, although the sheet metal on the car is still very sturdier, just not as solid as the 50’s Cadillacs.
I can add some commentary regarding frames used on convertibles in the 40's vs the competition. The 41 Cad was the first year for the universal frame across the 62 line and mine is an early one lacking the x-member plate called the "wolf's hide" (or something like that). Somewhere I have copies of the original correspondence to dealers to remove the cars from the frame and add "only if the customer complains of rattling." I believe that was dated late January 1941 and mine was built just before Xmas 1940. When restoring the frame I will add that plus the kick up supports later added as well.
I believe that frame was used through 1948 for Cadillac. In comparison to the frame under my '48 Packard it's much thinner in the x-member and the side rails may be thinner too. Seems much more robust on the Packard; it is the Senior model though so probably beefier than the Super Eight.
The Briggs body on the Packard is also very stout. Like the Cad my Packard was an early one and door hinges were modified about 20 cars after mine (doors tended to sag). Spot welds were employed to correct that but, the doors shut very authoritatively.
The undercoating used by Briggs (if they did it) was very thick and almost identical in appearance to a DeSoto I once had, so Briggs probably did it.
I have no doubt the Cadillac beats it out of a light but I'm guessing the Packard was much smoother and possibly quieter, I'll know one day!
Mike
Quote from: Clewisiii on January 21, 2021, 12:49:36 PM
It is also hard to say reliability when the 60s cars came with a 30 day warranty.
The entire front end of my 61. Fenders inner fenders hood grills, mount to only the firewall. And one central body mount under the radiator core support.
I have heard people argue that with the x frame the A pillar would crack at the room line. I did see a lead joint on my car crack there.
I see a lot of people try to hunt down rear window leaks that could be from old seals or body flex.
1968 Cadillacs came with a 24 month, 24,000 mile warranty.
Quote from: Clewisiii on January 22, 2021, 09:07:03 AM
Built "better". No. Really it only had different styling and features.
If your talking 50s and 60s and base coupes and devilles they had the same construction as anyone else. All vinyl and fabric seats zig zag springs for support. The door and trim panels were cardboard big fit and finish gaps everywhere and the stitching was not straight.
When you went to Fleetwood or eldorado you got pocketed coil spring seats. And started getting leather.
What set Cadillac apart was styling. Which is subjective. And what features came standard.
But Cadillac often was not the first with those features. GM regularly used Oldsmobile as a test vehicle for a new feature. After it was proven they would make it an option or standard equipment on Cadillac.
You should read up on things.
Cadillac engines hade more than twice the nickel content as the "best" chev engine. back then
The grilles, Cadillac grilles were op to 20 or more pieces of extruded aluminum fitted together, whereas chev and most other grilles were a one piece very thin stamped aluminum construction.
Sound isolation: Cadillac made extensive use of sound and vibration isolation materials in the body and suspension that others simply did not have.
Suspension. Chrysler (and imperials) used bone jarring leaf springs well into the 70 and 80s. I'm not sure when lincoln went to coil springs but Cadillac was out in front of this.
DeVilles had leather / cloth and all leather seating in the 60s and onward. The DeVille Convertibles had all leather seats as standard equipment.
Quote from: cadillacmike68 on January 25, 2021, 12:14:40 AM
You should read up on things.
Cadillac engines hade more than twice the nickel content as the "best" chev engine. back then
The grilles, Cadillac grilles were op to 20 or more pieces of extruded aluminum fitted together, whereas chev and most other grilles were a one piece very thin stamped aluminum construction.
Sound isolation: Cadillac made extensive use of sound and vibration isolation materials in the body and suspension that others simply did not have.
Suspension. Chrysler (and imperials) used bone jarring leaf springs well into the 70 and 80s. I'm not sure when lincoln went to coil springs but Cadillac was out in front of this.
DeVilles had leather / cloth and all leather seating in the 60s and onward. The DeVille Convertibles had all leather seats as standard equipment.
Cadillac Mike, you’re right. Cadillacs could be furnished with leather or cloth or the combination of both in Devilles. The main difference was that in Fleetwoods, the seating construction was much more beautyrest mattress like in its construction with pocket coil springs and much nicer leather and better foam padding.
Also the overall trim was nicer in Fleetwood’s. Obviously buying a Fleetwood in 65 meant buying a bigger, nicer Cadillac that truly had much more legroom than Fleetwoods in the past that were simply just a higher trim level.
Lincoln’s used rear leaf springs up until 1969 or 1970 I believe. They moved away from building unibody construction Continentals, and switch over to a full body-on-frame design with a rear 3-link coil spring suspension that finally gave its ride quality comparison honest competition to Cadillac. They were built much more simpler and less complex than their 60’s counterparts, and were much easier to work on too. Pretty much like every Cadillac made up until the late 70’s.
GM cars were far ahead of the competition IMO when it came to riding comfort due to the rear coil spring suspension.
I also think If you compare the differences in curb weight, this definitely factors into Cadillacs better build quality than its GM siblings. A heavier car will usually ride better and be more comfortable to drive with the combination of a well tuned suspension . Not in every case, but for the most part a heavier car will be able to handle road shock and vibrations much better than a lighter vehicle. Cadillacs engines were always the best built, and one of the most powerful performing V8 engines in all of GM divisions.
^^ Some DeVilles, especially DeVille Convertibles like mine had interiors by Fleetwood.
I also remember the leather seats in my 1973 sedan deVille were exceptionally smooth and comfortable.
I was always of the impression that when the plate says Fleetwood, the interior was of a higher class than the Fisher, and my Eldorado on the sill plate says Interior by Fleetwood Body by Fisher.
Bruce. >:D
Enjoying these exchanges, and at the risk of adding unproven data points, I found this site that seems to offer some creditable notions about the production costs of various models. Again, far from certain about the site's creds, and usual mission. https://www.mtvehicles.com/post/how-much-does-it-actually-cost-manufacturers-to-make-a-car Happy day, James
Hi James,
That was an interesting read. We’ll never truly know how much it will actually cost an automaker to build every vehicle they produce. Raw materials cost can fluctuate from month to month, shortages of certain components have to be factored in, they’re so many variables that can change the cost structure for a given automaker that can either increase or decrease their profit margins.
Back in the good ole days when our Cadillacs were built with heavy chrome, thick sheetmetal, wild shapes and sizes, and not much plastics, I can’t imagine how much money it would have cost Cadillac in materials alone to say, build a 59 Cad with its rocket like tail fins, highly styled interior, and detailed and chiseled front end. Imagine how much it would cost them to design and build the same exact car today? I’ll take a wild guess and say about $500,000 or more.
With new vehicles being made with higher amounts lower quality materials like plastic and composite, the cost of new cars/trucks have skyrocketed in price over the last 3 years! I think the average cost of a new vehicle today is like $40,000!!
That’s insane! I’ve noticed with each new generation of vehicles and it doesn’t matter who makes them, you can tell cost cutting took place in many areas of the vehicle. Either from a lower quality interior, to thinner sheetmetal, less sound insulation, thinner glass, weaker suspension components or design, and so on. This isn’t always the case, but after attending numerous auto shows over the years before Covid, each new generation of cars and trucks seemed to feel a little more cheaply made. Sure the technology has improved and the added features in modern cars are wonderful, but somethings got to give and cost have to be cut somewhere so while many automakers spend all this money on technology improving their vehicles, they sacrifice durability and quality of other components to satisfy the demands of tech savvy customers. They don’t care if the doors don’t feel that solid, or the plastic trim in the interior feels flimsy and cheap, the paint has some orange peel, there’s some misaligned trim here and there, who cares! As long as their phone connects easily to the car and they can control their entire life in it, that’s all that matters. :-\ ???
In the early 80s the parts totaled 4X the cost of the car. But that is not including labor, or the volume of scale efficiencies.
Thinner sheet metal is actually normally more expensive sheet metal.
I was working in seat structures and it was in a time that the metal went down to .8 mm but in Eutectic steel. It was a strong metal and very hard to drill or process. But because it was so thin we could not just tap in a screw. We required more then one thread engagement. So other forms of fasteners had to be integrated.
I know people think that a thick steel body is better. But that is normally a softer weaker metal in an alloy comparison. Often now the thinner metals cannot be hammered and worked like the old steel. Because the old steel was weak and ductile.
Trust me they did not just thin up the same alloy of metal of the old stuff.
One thing I should note that my 2017 Chevy Impala body sheetmetal is very thin and can easily be dented or bent if someone leaned up against the fender the wrong way, but it’s internal body structure is actually very ridged and strong. The car has a solid, quiet and stiff body structure, but it doesn’t isolate you from bumps, pot holes, and small road imperfections like a full frame car could.
It’s subframes front and rear help with its durability and rigidity as well.
Like they say, some of the old cars were hollow especially cars from the 30’s-60’s, and didn’t really have a strong internal structure like a modern unibody car has today using high strength steel, but they did have sheetmetal that resisted dents and dings much better than any modern vehicle today.
I guess automakers relied heavily on the vehicles frame for safety, and its rigidity rather than making the internals of the body structure stronger, this is why they can be so hollow.
Maybe the modern vehicle with thinner metal, has a much more dense internal body structure than one of our full framed Cadillacs, thus making them safer in a crash. All I know is if I was driving say my 54 or 64 Cadillac in a parking lot and accidentally hit a modern car pulling into a parking space, i guarantee you the other car I hit would suffer extreme damage while my Cads wouldn’t even see a scratch, especially on the 54.
"Maybe the modern vehicle with thinner metal, has a much more dense internal body structure than one of our full framed Cadillacs, thus making them safer in a crash. All I know is if I was driving say my 54 or 64 Cadillac in a parking lot and accidentally hit a modern car pulling into a parking space, i guarantee you the other car I hit would suffer extreme damage while my Cads wouldn’t even see a scratch, especially on the 54."
Absolutely agree with the above--- On one occasion with "on street" parking in NYC, an individual hit my '56 while backing out of his parking space. Several "stoop dwelling" fellows who witness the event told me what had happened, " This guy backed up really fast and smashed in his rear fender and sprung his trunk-- his car was no match for your Caddy." Those massive front and rear bumpers could take some brutal hits.
Quote from: James Landi on February 04, 2021, 07:28:39 AM
"Maybe the modern vehicle with thinner metal, has a much more dense internal body structure than one of our full framed Cadillacs, thus making them safer in a crash. All I know is if I was driving say my 54 or 64 Cadillac in a parking lot and accidentally hit a modern car pulling into a parking space, i guarantee you the other car I hit would suffer extreme damage while my Cads wouldn’t even see a scratch, especially on the 54."
Absolutely agree with the above--- On one occasion with "on street" parking in NYC, an individual hit my '56 while backing out of his parking space. Several "stoop dwelling" fellows who witness the event told me what had happened, " This guy backed up really fast and smashed in his rear fender and sprung his trunk-- his car was no match for your Caddy." Those massive front and rear bumpers could take some brutal hits.
Right!? Haha..Too funny! They literally are battering rams for sure . The sheer mass of the front bumpers, especially the bullet “Dagmars†looks like they were made to attack other vehicles or anyone standing in the way. Same can be said of the rears, you can literally stand in top of a 56 bumper which is similar to my 54, and not cause any harm to them. The body sheetmetal and heavy-duty thick chrome bumpers of 50’s Cadillac’s were insanely strong and overbuilt. These cars look like they would be fun in a demolition derby lol.