X-Frame vs Perimeter Framed Cadillacs

[Scot Minesinger]

Jim,

Sorry for delay in answering.  I had to make extensive measurements and calculations to design those frame strengtheners myself.  The design was in AutoCAD.  After completion I printed a set of them on cardboard and cut them out.  All the holes in the strengthener had to line up with all the holes in the bottom of the frame rail, and I had to have drainage in case water got in between frame and frame strengthener.  Once the cardboard frame strengthener simulations were right, I sent the design to Stromberg, a local specialty metal shop that I have enjoyed a long professional relationship with for decades, via e-mail.

Stromberg needed some of my professional time and we traded services.  I drover to their facility, performed my work and supervised the breaking (putting "L" shape) of the 3/16" laser cut plate steel because they are mirror images and breaking the wrong way would be bad.  After theirs and my work was concluded, loaded them in my pick up and drove home - a nice way to spend an afternoon.

I made another set of frame strengtheners and sold them to a person modifying a 1969 Cadillac with a 700 hp version of the 472, plus many other upgrades.

   

[Lexi]

Hello 64CaddieLacky, getting in here a little late, but the best edition of Hendry's book is said to be this version:

Legacy of Leadership (Cadillac at 100) 1902-2006
Maurice D. Hendry
Automobile Heritage Publishing and Communications, New Albany, Indiana
ISBN 978-1-59613-001-2 (volume 1) 978-1-59613-002-9 (volume 2) 2008

This is said to be a revision of Hendry's work and is comprised of 2 hard cover volumes set in a rigid slip case. Clay/Lexi

[64\/54Cadillacking]

Wasn't Cadillac's perimeter frames already pretty rigid? I would assume even right out of the factory that the verts would be more reinforced to withstand the increase of twisting forces as their is no hardtop. So to have to add extra bracing to a fully framed Cad must have meant that those verts weren't as "tight" as they needed to be.

I know for instance, 60's unit-body- Continentals verts were a good 500lbs heavier than the pillared sedans with extra bracing underneath to prevent severe body flexing. I heard people say that guys who own a 60's Lincoln vert had to be extra careful when jacking up the car or when it was on a lift, because the doors could easily get misaligned, won't close, and start sagging if jacked up in the wrong spot.

Although those cars were absolute beast and are overbuilt, the bodies did transmit more small road vibrations into the cabin compared to a framed Cadillac.  But still way better isolation than most modern sedans of today, especially with the softer Bias Ply tires. Going over rough bumps didn't phase the car.

As for X-frame Cads, is their anyway to add extra bracing to them?

Hey Lexi, that book looks like a good read. I might have to check it out one day. I see that Amazon has it for sale.

[Lexi]

Yes 64CaddieLacky, it is a good read and a must have for all Caddy junkies. My favorite Cadillac books are by Roy A. Schneider. His work, CADILLACS OF THE SIXTIES would probably be of most interest to you; Cadillac Motorbooks, Temple City, Ca., 1995, ISBN 0-917104-04-1. This is a spectacular hard cover volume which in contrast to Hendry's work is weighted towards the cars and their production figures, specifications, standard features and options, rather than citing a complete history. Note Hendry covers both areas in detail, but Schneider's focus is probably of more interest to the Cadillac owner. Indespensible! Clay/Lexi

[Scot Minesinger]

64 Caddielacky,

The frame strengtheners are for my four door convertible authorized by Cadillac in 1970 (the only 4 door convertible authorized by Cadillac after WWII).  There was too much frame flex for me as the space between doors went from maybe 40" on a two door to 66" on a four door.  The car started life as a regular convertible and so the chassis and top mechanism is same as any 1965-70 convertible.  They should have strengthened the chassis a bit, so I did 45 years later. 

Before on jack stands the doors on my four door convertible would not open, now they all open even if jacked up at center between doors.  This car drives better than my standard two door convertible.

Jim on the forum asked about these so that is why I went into it in more depth.  The added about 41 lbs on each side.

[64\/54Cadillacking]

64 Caddielacky,

The frame strengtheners are for my four door convertible authorized by Cadillac in 1970 (the only 4 door convertible authorized by Cadillac after WWII).  There was too much frame flex for me as the space between doors went from maybe 40" on a two door to 66" on a four door.  The car started life as a regular convertible and so the chassis and top mechanism is same as any 1965-70 convertible.  They should have strengthened the chassis a bit, so I did 45 years later. 

Before on jack stands the doors on my four door convertible would not open, now they all open even if jacked up at center between doors.  This car drives better than my standard two door convertible.

Jim on the forum asked about these so that is why I went into it in more depth.  The added about 41 lbs on each side.

Scott, I didn't read your post carefully, you said 4 door convertible.

I've never seen that before. That's new to me.

No wonder you had to strengthened it.

Was it cheaper for the big 3 back then construct cars with a frame, or unit-body chassis? I am wondering because if you look at the majority of new cars, even to the largest sedans, they are all unit-body today. Most people say that framed cars ride better, but it depends on the year, make and model. My 61 Lincoln I feel absorbed road shock better than my 64 Cad, and the body was tighter feeling, plus the car had this firm planted almost sporty race car feel to it, none of that floaty disconnected Cadillac trait that is so common with Cads from the 50's-70's. Driving my 64 I feel like I am hovering above the ground and I love the disconnected feel, it makes driving the Cad so effortless.

Modern unit-body structures are so tight that they don't have the flexing issues anymore, nor the road noise problems as much as they used to so this is why I am asking.

And for your honest unbiased opinion guys, do you really notice a difference in the ride quality when say driving your modern daily driver compared to your classic Cad? I think it is very hard to beat a softly sprung late 50's-70's Cadillac ride smoothness even in today's luxury cars, but I could be wrong.

[Scot Minesinger]

I only drive my "daily drivers" when the trip may be risky for my 1970 Cadillacs.  I always prefer to drive the 1970 Cadillacs.  Today I drove two of the 1970 Cadillacs, once to vote and again for a bank errand.  The weather has been great lately and my daily drivers are felling neglected.