Author Topic: Cadillac Vs. Lasalle  (Read 5154 times)

Offline Artistic Precision

  • Posts: 141
  • Name: A Porrino
Cadillac Vs. Lasalle
« on: May 13, 2014, 12:07:42 AM »
So I've heard a couple different things from different people since I've had my 39 Lasalle. Which models are more valuable, and or more rare? 39, 40, Cadillac or Lasalle? I've heard Cadillac was the top of the line, Lasalle was 2nd, then came Buick. I've also heard Buick is between Cadillac and Lasalle with Chevy at the bottom.

Online The Tassie Devil(le)

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 12410
  • CLC Number: 18992
  • Name: Bruce Reynolds
Re: Cadillac Vs. Lasalle
« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2014, 12:53:17 AM »
The LaSalle was a "companion car" to the Cadillac, and the Buick was below the Cadillac.

In the days of old, if you couldn't afford a Cadillac, you purchased a LaSalle, and if you couldn't afford a LaSalle, you purchased a Buick.

But, some people didn't want to seem to be superior to everyone else, so they purchased a Buick.

These days, anyone and buy anything, as they all look the same, and snobbery doesn't come into it.

Some people don't even buy a Cadillac simply because Cadillac was associated with Gas Gulping vehicles.

The LaSalle owners will always say that their cars are better looking, but look is in the eye of the beholder.

Bruce. >:D
'72 Eldorado Convertible (LHD)
'70 Ranchero Squire (RHD)
'74 Chris Craft Gull Wing (SH)
'02 VX Series II Holden Commodore SS Sedan
(Past President Modified Chapter)

Past Cars of significance - to me
1935 Ford 3 Window Coupe
1936 Ford 5 Window Coupe
1937 Chevrolet Sports Coupe
1955 Chevrolet Convertible
1959 Ford Fairlane Ranch Wagon
1960 Cadillac CDV
1972 Cadillac Eldorado Coupe

Offline Artistic Precision

  • Posts: 141
  • Name: A Porrino
Re: Cadillac Vs. Lasalle
« Reply #2 on: May 13, 2014, 01:07:33 AM »
Thank you. I like both. I'm not as fond of the 39 Cad grill, because the 40 looks a lot cleaner and nicer. but there is no other look like the tall oval grill of the 39 and 40 Lasalle. Do you know which was produced in higher numbers, Cad or Lasalle? (Which is more rare)

Online The Tassie Devil(le)

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 12410
  • CLC Number: 18992
  • Name: Bruce Reynolds
Re: Cadillac Vs. Lasalle
« Reply #3 on: May 13, 2014, 06:50:05 AM »
They built more LaSalles (22,001) than Cadillacs (13,581) in 1939, and 24,130 LaSalles against 13,046 Cadillacs in 1940.

It doesn't take many brains to see that LaSalle was the better seller, and as Cadillac people didn't want to lose the Cadillac brand, they stopped building the LaSalles at the end of 1940.   I suppose the rationale was if the buyer couldn't afford the Cadillac, then there was the Buick was the preferred vehicle for the sales person to direct them to, or Oldsmobile.   At least GM had a number of "classes" to suit most buyers.

Now, as for which model was the most popular, then they would have to be any 4 door Sedan, as most Cadillac buyers would have needed the convenience of the 4 doors to carry passengers.   Just the same as it is these days.

Bruce. >:D
'72 Eldorado Convertible (LHD)
'70 Ranchero Squire (RHD)
'74 Chris Craft Gull Wing (SH)
'02 VX Series II Holden Commodore SS Sedan
(Past President Modified Chapter)

Past Cars of significance - to me
1935 Ford 3 Window Coupe
1936 Ford 5 Window Coupe
1937 Chevrolet Sports Coupe
1955 Chevrolet Convertible
1959 Ford Fairlane Ranch Wagon
1960 Cadillac CDV
1972 Cadillac Eldorado Coupe

Offline C.R. Patton II

  • 1939 LaSalle C4D
  • Posts: 1209
  • Motor City, Saguaro, Socal & Switzerland
Re: Cadillac Vs. Lasalle
« Reply #4 on: May 13, 2014, 06:58:33 AM »

Hello Porrino

As a new owner of a LaSalle who is inquisitive, it might be a good idea to:
(1) Become a member of the CLC
(2) Join a region or chapter near your residence
(3) Acquire the LaSalle: Cadillac's Companion Car book
(4) Seek to purchase the appropriate LaSalle Authenticity Manual
All good men own a Cadillac but great gentlemen drive a LaSalle. That is the consequence of success.

Offline Blade

  • Posts: 609
  • CLC Number: 27905
  • Name: Tibor Kiss
Re: Cadillac Vs. Lasalle
« Reply #5 on: May 13, 2014, 08:41:17 AM »
LaSalles were produced in higher numbers per year but since they were only made from 1927 to 1940 the total production of them are significantly lower that of the Cadillacs; also for reasons not fully understood yet today a lot fewer of the LaSalle cars survived even from each year, making them more rare. The biggest obstacle LaSalle faces today is the lack of recognition, most people - especially the younger generations - don't know much about them if they even heard of them. Cadillacs, on the other hand continue their popularity even today keeping the name alive and well recognized even around the world. So if you are looking for a 'rare' vehicle the best choice is definitely a LaSalle, however if you prefer a car that is more popular a Cadillac would be the obvious pick. Either road you chose you never go wrong with any of these cars.

Hope you'll join the club as you get a lot of good support here from very knowledgable and helpful people.  :)
Tibor K.

1959 Cadillac Series 62 Convertible
1959 Cadillac Series 62 Sedan

Offline Brian Dowell

  • Posts: 87
  • CLC Number: 25297
  • Name: B. Dowell
Re: Cadillac Vs. Lasalle
« Reply #6 on: May 13, 2014, 10:04:18 PM »
 As Archie would say!  :) Gee the old LaSalle ran great, those were the days! :)
« Last Edit: May 13, 2014, 10:06:51 PM by Brian Dowell »
30 LaSalle Coupe
30 LaSalle 7 Passenger touring
33 LaSalle Sedan
60 Cadillac Convertible
15 Model T Touring

Offline Blade

  • Posts: 609
  • CLC Number: 27905
  • Name: Tibor Kiss
Re: Cadillac Vs. Lasalle
« Reply #7 on: May 13, 2014, 10:57:42 PM »
Nicely put Art! Especially this should be chiseled in stone: "Edsel gets killed because of its failure, LaSalle gets killed because of its success".
Tibor K.

1959 Cadillac Series 62 Convertible
1959 Cadillac Series 62 Sedan

Online Jim Stamper

  • Posts: 553
Re: Cadillac Vs. Lasalle
« Reply #8 on: May 14, 2014, 12:19:46 AM »

    As far as " rare " goes within the Cadillacs and LaSalles, ( and probably most marques)and the different years, aside from some limited numbers of commercial cars, ambulances, hearses, and such, the convertibles are usually the rare cars. The big series V-16s and V-12s were of limited production, but again the convertibles usually have much lower production numbers in all series. Over their lifetimes the weather got into a lot of open cars and so the survival rate is low too.

     Of the convertibles the four door convertible sedans have the lowest production numbers. In 1939 LaSalle made around 185 convertible sedans. That is not many cars. Far more two door convertibles were produced.

    Someone here no doubt has the exact production numbers for all of the Cadillacs and LaSalles. A production table of the models and production numbers from the years 1927-1940. That would be interesting to see.
                                Jim Stamper  CLC#13470

Online The Tassie Devil(le)

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 12410
  • CLC Number: 18992
  • Name: Bruce Reynolds
Re: Cadillac Vs. Lasalle
« Reply #9 on: May 14, 2014, 01:30:35 AM »
Funny thing is that a rare vehicle is one that everyone wants, but cannot afford, and so few were made, that there are virtually none left.

Sometimes having a rare car is a death sentence as no parts are made for it, and only the rich can afford to restore it.

Aftermarket people only make patrs for the common car, as they need volume of sales to make a profit.

Bruce. >:D
'72 Eldorado Convertible (LHD)
'70 Ranchero Squire (RHD)
'74 Chris Craft Gull Wing (SH)
'02 VX Series II Holden Commodore SS Sedan
(Past President Modified Chapter)

Past Cars of significance - to me
1935 Ford 3 Window Coupe
1936 Ford 5 Window Coupe
1937 Chevrolet Sports Coupe
1955 Chevrolet Convertible
1959 Ford Fairlane Ranch Wagon
1960 Cadillac CDV
1972 Cadillac Eldorado Coupe

Offline Blade

  • Posts: 609
  • CLC Number: 27905
  • Name: Tibor Kiss
Re: Cadillac Vs. Lasalle
« Reply #10 on: May 14, 2014, 08:39:44 AM »
But then 'rare' really is what we compare it against. If we consider back in the days (not sure if this still holds today) pretty much any year the total production of Cadillacs were often less than just a single model from Ford or Chevy. Compared to these more common vehicles you can pick any Cad or LaSalle and you still got a rare ride. I can often see this when I go to car shows with all models present, one can see the sea of Fords, Buicks, Oldsmobiles but rarely any Cads - let alone a LaSalle!
Tibor K.

1959 Cadillac Series 62 Convertible
1959 Cadillac Series 62 Sedan

Offline Tom Boehm

  • Posts: 702
  • Name: Tom Boehm CLC #6750
Re: Cadillac Vs. Lasalle
« Reply #11 on: May 14, 2014, 09:55:44 AM »
Hello, I have a 1940 Lasalle. In my monthly scanning of Hemmings it seems to me that 1939 and 1940 Cadillacs are worth considerably more than 1939 and 1940 Lasalles. This is especially true with coupes and convertibles. I attribute this to that old combination of rarity and desirability. As it was when the cars were new, Cadillac is still recognized as the top of the line. 
     It is interesting to note the value difference despite the fact that they were nearly identical cars. The only difference between a 1940 Lasalle series 52 and a 1940 Cadillac series 62 is the front end styling and 10 horsepower. Same body shell, same interior, and same engine/mechanics. The same is true for the 1939 Lasalle and the 1939 series 61 Cadillac.
     The depression forced Cadillac to gradually lower prices into Lasalle territory. GM figured it could get more for the same car with a Cadillac name on it and dropped Lasalle.

Offline Blade

  • Posts: 609
  • CLC Number: 27905
  • Name: Tibor Kiss
Re: Cadillac Vs. Lasalle
« Reply #12 on: May 14, 2014, 10:40:18 AM »
Yet still you could probably put two of the same year Cad and LaSalle next to each other and most people wouldn't recognize that they are looking at the same car.
Tibor K.

1959 Cadillac Series 62 Convertible
1959 Cadillac Series 62 Sedan

joeceretti

  • Guest
Re: Cadillac Vs. Lasalle
« Reply #13 on: May 14, 2014, 11:14:07 AM »
It has been my observation, while restoring my Cadillac 38-60S and having access to a bunch of parts from a LaSalle 38-50 that there are actually quite a few small differences between the mechanicals in the two. Engine displacement and a small accompanying drop in horse power the most obvious. The tail shaft on the transmission is smaller, there is a transmission stabilizer bracket that appears on the Cadillac and does not on the LaSalle. How much difference this stabilizer made, I can't say. Carburetors are different, one being a Carter and the other a Stromberg. I found many other small differences that aren't coming to mind. My take on it, GM was trying to use less parts and also less expensive parts in the LaSalles to keep the build cost down and profits as high as possible due to the not insignificant difference in sale price.

It was more than just a rebadge and engine displacement difference.

However, whatever the difference. They are both amazing cars, especially for their time. Near my home there is highway with a VERY long and fairly steep climb. I did it yesterday for the first time since my engine rebuild. I cruised up at 70mph with the throttle at somewhere around half pedal. Very impressive. Some lower end modern cars have a hard time with this hill.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2014, 11:17:58 AM by Joe Ceretti »

Offline Blade

  • Posts: 609
  • CLC Number: 27905
  • Name: Tibor Kiss
Re: Cadillac Vs. Lasalle
« Reply #14 on: May 14, 2014, 11:55:44 AM »
Nice to have your car done and put on the road finally isn't it?

Far as carburaters go GM also used different kinds even on the Cads, in '59 they either had the Carter or the Rochester put on, according to the factory service manual it really depended on which one they had in stock (I got Rocherster on both of mine). Did some reading on it and sounds the two were pretty comparable.

Are LaSalle parts comparable to Caddy parts in price? I assume they are somewhat harder to find.
Tibor K.

1959 Cadillac Series 62 Convertible
1959 Cadillac Series 62 Sedan

Offline Artistic Precision

  • Posts: 141
  • Name: A Porrino
Re: Cadillac Vs. Lasalle
« Reply #15 on: May 14, 2014, 01:03:36 PM »
Thank you guys for all your knowledge. Having this car is like a history lesson. I was aware of the Lasalles but didn't know much about their history until I got one to work on. It seems to me in todays classic car or "hot rod" market place, most people like Cads, because they are familiar with them, and known as top of the line luxury vehicles for their time throughout the eras, but the real harcore enthusiasts like the Lasalles because of their uniqueness and beautiful front end styling. I'm proud to even be in the position to drive and work on one of these cars. It's a feeling like nothing else.

My 39 Lassale coupe is rough, and needs quite a bit of work. It will be a year or better before it is completed. I am currently looking at possibly buying a 1940 Cad coupe, that is already running, with all new electrical, all new chrome, fully re done car, to do a little bit of work to, take to as many shows as I can and eventually sell. I build custom classics for a living and I've mostly been focusing on the 60's Lincolns, hard tops and convertibles. But this Lassale came along and changed the whole game plan and now I'm looking into focusing on this era of vehicle for a little while, just as I have done with the Lincolns. Familiarize myself with the cars and figure out exactly how they come apart and go back together as well as the different parts that are hard to find and restore. I have these Lincolns down, they are cake to me now. This 39 is my new challenge that will far exceed any car I have ever built. I am thankful I found you guys here to help me learn about these cars. I hope you guys enjoy the cars I produce.

Offline C.R. Patton II

  • 1939 LaSalle C4D
  • Posts: 1209
  • Motor City, Saguaro, Socal & Switzerland
Re: Cadillac Vs. Lasalle
« Reply #16 on: May 14, 2014, 02:28:45 PM »


Ladies and Gentlemen

Mr. Porrino I think your aim was to gain knowledge by asking this question. Please allow me to inform you that it has never been Cadillac versus LaSalle. They do not compete, contend, or vie for affection. Sure there are opinions and preferences but when we travel on the road it is Cadillac & LaSalle together against EVERYONE else. They are a team that works in concert and harmony to preserve and promote the Standard of the World.

The following are excerpts found in the wonderful book, LaSalle: Cadillac's Companion Car by Ron Van Gelderen and Matt Larson.

The new car has been produced by Cadillac Motor Car Company to fill the demand which has existed in this country for some years for a slightly smaller car of Cadillac calibre for a slightly different purpose.

The LaSalle was not a little Cadillac...."It is an entirely new car for a new purpose to fill a new field of usefulness".

At first advertisers listed the Cadillac Motor Car Company rather matter-of-factly.  Later, LaSalle was linked more boldly to the luxury and fearures found in Cadillac;  "Manufactured completely by the Cadillac Motor Car Company witin its own plants"; The Royal Family of Motordom, LaSalle,  Cadillac, and Fleetwood"; and LaSalle is fashioned side by side with Cadillac".

(I am currently finishing a rarity value guide for LaSalle automobiles)
« Last Edit: May 14, 2014, 06:57:21 PM by C.R. Patton II »
All good men own a Cadillac but great gentlemen drive a LaSalle. That is the consequence of success.

Offline Blade

  • Posts: 609
  • CLC Number: 27905
  • Name: Tibor Kiss
Re: Cadillac Vs. Lasalle
« Reply #17 on: May 14, 2014, 09:05:11 PM »

Ladies and Gentlemen

Mr. Porrino I think your aim was to gain knowledge by asking this question. Please allow me to inform you that it has never been Cadillac versus LaSalle. They do not compete, contend, or vie for affection.
The plain truth!

Quote
Sure there are opinions and preferences but when we travel on the road it is Cadillac & LaSalle together against EVERYONE else.
LOL Sir C.R. ... yes, bring them on! We'll stick'em on the fins!   >:D

Quote
The following are excerpts found in the wonderful book, LaSalle: Cadillac's Companion Car by Ron Van Gelderen and Matt Larson.
I am happy to announce that I finally got this book and probably going to start reading it over the weekend ...  :o

Quote
The LaSalle was not a little Cadillac...."It is an entirely new car for a new purpose to fill a new field of usefulness".
Well put!

Quote
(I am currently finishing a rarity value guide for LaSalle automobiles)
This got my curiousity, when and where is it going to be available?
Tibor K.

1959 Cadillac Series 62 Convertible
1959 Cadillac Series 62 Sedan

Offline Brad Ipsen CLC #737

  • Posts: 1273
  • CLC Number: 737
  • Name: Brad Ipsen
Re: Cadillac Vs. Lasalle
« Reply #18 on: May 14, 2014, 10:22:48 PM »
By 1940 there were very few differences between the 52 and 62.

First on the engines.  I think the main purpose of the 322 vs. the 346 was to reduce the block casting reject rate.  The cylinder cores could shift more without the block being rejected.  Cadillac did not take advantage of the reduced reciprocating weight with the lighter pistons which could have reduced the crankshaft counterweights.  Instead they weighted up the wrist pins to make the Cadillac and LaSalle pistons weight the same and make the crankshafts interchangeable.  The LaSalle did not have a vibration damper on front and did not have the flex flywheel, so theoretically the Cadillac is smoother.  A tip to all LaSalle owners when rebuilding your engine, get the Cadillac flywheel and vibration damper and balance the engine.  Reproduction pistons do not weight the same as original Cadillac pistons so the crankshaft is inherently out of balance then.  Transmission, suspension and rear end were identical on the 62 series and for the most part to the 40-60S.  The earlier 60S like Joe has had many remnants of the big series cars which were dropped in 39.  LaSalle had a shorter wheelbase but the steering gear has identical internal parts.  Dash was 100% the same except for the emblems.  Exterior trim on the LaSalle probably cost a little bit less.  All in all not that much difference so the buyer looking for the most value would buy the LaSalle, but Cadillac still was the name.

I can't count how many times either I have been asked if my 39-90 or 40-60S are a LaSalle even with the Cadillac name clearly shown on the bumper.  I don't know if it is something about the area but the LaSalle name seems to be really well known in the PNW.   
Brad Ipsen
1940 Cadillac 60S
1938 Cadillac 9039
1940 Cadillac 6267
1940 LaSalle 5227
1949 Cadillac 6237X
1940 Cadillac 60S Limo

Offline harvey b

  • Posts: 894
  • The truth is often a bitter pill to swallow
  • Name: Harvey Bowness
Re: Cadillac Vs. Lasalle
« Reply #19 on: May 16, 2014, 09:20:01 AM »
I don't know how they did it,but the 37 lasalle was 450.00 cheaper then the 60 series caddy that year,they must have cut a lot of corners,400 was a lot of money then.The Ad I have says the lasalle was 995.00  and the 60 series was 1445.00. Would love to know how they did it,that is almost a 1/3 of the price,no wonder they out sold the caddy,Cadillac was a victim of their own success. Harvey
Harvey Bowness

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13