How drivable are the 1940-1950's Cadillacs?

[Bobby B]

The big question is how much RISK do you want to assume in pursuit of fun and pleasure? 

This thought has never popped into my head regarding classic cars from the time I've been able to get behind the wheel. I think most full sized Cadillacs would probably stuff any modern car into the weeds if there were a collision. Maybe this is why they added Air Bags in the first place.....
                                             Bobby

[Joe V]

My experience is with my 49.  To your questions from my experience -

1. Drivability - how does the car feel on the road?
On a long straight or winding road, a mechanically sound Cadillac is a wonderful drive.  Cornering with these cars is a world of difference from a more modern Cadillac, even your 76 Eldo.  You do have to adjust how you drive with these cars in modern traffic.  They have the peep to keep up as noted, but even with perfectly set up brakes modern cars stop so much faster and you can quickly find yourself very close to the car stopping in front of you.  It's not how your old Cadillac drives it's about how different modern cars drive.  With my 49, I really only notice the lack of power steering when backing out of the driveway and on tight turns where I need to turn sharp from a stop.  I can also get my 49 up to 65/70 miles and hour, but it is a tough ride mostly because of the wind resistance.  It is a more comfortable and enjoyable ride in the 50-60 range.

2. Reliability - I know that's a tough question. But do you need to have a mechanic in the passenger seat every time you drive more than a few miles.
It is like any classic car.  If the engine or drivetrain is tired or the electronics are suspect, you will have problems.  Always lots of discussion about 6v systems but it is really a simple dynamic.  Lower voltage, higher amps.  Corroded, frayed, or compromised wiring and connections will cause problems sooner.  I have all new wiring and have no power problems with my 6v system.  I would expect any 30K car I purchased to have restored wiring throughout and a rebuilt motor and drivetrain.  There is only so much that can go wrong with these cars.  When properly running you don't need a mechanic but you should know what to do to fix common issue that can occur on long rides.  Again, I think that is the case with any classic car.

3. Safety - am I putting myself in a tin can, so that any collision is likely to send me to the hospital or beyond?
These cars are really, really big tin cans.  It would be unrealistic to think that a 1940/50's car is as safe a modern car with front and side SRS, breakfree engines, crumple zones, 3 point harnesses, collapsing steering columns, and cushioned bumpers.  Oh, and soft dashboards.  You did not say how much you plan to drive the car.  I don't think as much about safety and I don't feel uncomfortable or unsafe driving my 49, but I don't take mine on the interstate and any higher speed driving is mostly country roads outside the city.  Longer rides for me are on the roads parallel to the interstates that are more fun to drive with less traffic.

To me, the primary question is why it is enjoyable to own an older Cadillac.  I believe that experience is different with each different decade of Cadillac technology.  If a more modern view of driveability, reliability, and safety were my primary qualifications for ownership, I'd probably be in the market for a nice 76 eldo.

[CadillacRob]

Calling one of these old cars safe because of weight, heavier steel and bigger bumpers is a falsehood.  Theres a video online of a 59 chevy impala or bel air hitting a new malibu head on.  The 59 passengers were killed on impact when their heads smacked the dash and windshield, which crumpled into the cab.

I drive my 50 cadillac around town, unrestored and no seatbelts.  Bias plys, 6 volt, manual steering, manual drum brakes with single master, manual windows, the whole bit.  Goes straight down the road, but I do have to "pre-load" the car when entering curves, as in, turn the wheel some, get the car leaning and then follow through the curve.  That could be my worn out car though.  Interstate? Forget about it.

Wouldnt start at the grocery store after a longer cruise because it was hot and turned over slow.  Popped the hood and waited 10 minutes and then she fired up.

If youre planning on driving the car frequently, Id shoot for later 50's models - like 55-59. 

[John Barry [CLC17027]]

My '40 La Salle is reasonably road-worthy, I suppose, by any conventional definition.  Yes, I use interstates in the greater Philadelphia (PA) / Wilmington (DE) area since those are the only viable options for getting across the Delaware when necessary.  However, I commonly keep to the right lane at speeds approximating the limit.

As concessions to safety, a fellow Valley Forge Region member and I installed lap seat belts in it in 2007.  Those were absolutely necessary to put my then-infant granddaughter's car seat in it--and since my grandchildren (four in all now) ride in that car occasionally, I'm glad I did.

Also, too many miles of PA / NJ / DE interstates have / had worm's eye view profiles across a lane that look like the letter "W".  Grooves have been pounded into the lanes by trucks, which can make driving with bias ply tires literally a white knuckle experience.  I don't need / want that so I got authentic-looking radials a number of years back.

A '40 La Salle will keep up with latter-day traffic with no difficulty: on an early, bone-dry, sunny autumn Saturday some years ago, I had mine on NJ route 55 (a limited access highway) and got up to 85 mph with something to spare.  Now, I was the only car in sight for a good mile or more in either direction on my side of that route when I did that, so it's not highly recommended. 

Braking is something of a different story: you can't panic-stop as one would with a modern car.  Bear that in mind also. 

Finally there's mileage: those pre-war flathead V8 engines are not efficient by contemporary standards.  I've often compared my La Salle's mileage to that of a typical school bus.

Take these for what you will.

[Jay Friedman]

I agree with John Barry, as most everything he wrote applies to my '49.  The exception is that the interstates are not quite as worn here in Georgia, so for the time being I can make do with bias ply tires.  (Will probably switch to radials when these wear out.)

To add to what I wrote earlier about my car's drive-ability, like John I had seat belts installed when I bought it and I usually stay on the right side of the interstate at or about the speed limit.  I also once had it up to 80 mph on a deserted straight interstate (I-64 in Illinois) but once was enough.

[kav]

To answer your question about drivability , here in Australia I have driven plenty of GM's 70's and 80's lesser grade vehicles and I can tell you my 53 Cadillac , craps all over them for comfort reliability and style  . I have restored my car mechanically . I would have no hesitation in jumping in it tomorrow and driving several thousand kms . As for brakes , it has no power assistance , and unless you are a complete pussy , poses no problems at all . In fact it stops better than my 2003 Toyota 4wd . I run radial whitewall tyres .
Safety , it has no collapsible steering column , no airbags , NO SEATBELTS , so if I crash into someone , their car is going to get F*#ked up , but so am I , so you drive accordingly. I don't think  I would like it as a daily driver but I don't  have or  need only one vehicle .
The one big factor is , to keep them reliable and safe , the regular maintenance , sucks if you're used to late model Japanese machinery . I do all my own mechanical work .cheers  stuart

[Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621]

The safest car is the car that is safely operated to begin with.

[bcroe]

The one big factor is, to keep them reliable and safe,
the regular maintenance, sucks if you're used to late model Japanese
machinery. I do all my own mechanical work. cheers  stuart   

I got rid of everything before the mid 70s because of maintenance and safety, and
also because the high octane leaded gas they needed was no longer available.  The
Honda here at 360,000 miles has demonstrated low maintenance, but certainly
not zero.  At this point its alternator, starter, and distributor have all been replaced,
along with most of the exhaust system.  While such things have lasted 150% to
200% as long as in my 77, the cost of replacement parts was an order of
magnitude more (NOT an exaggeration).  In addition with the need to remove
part of the suspension to get at the alternator, such jobs were given to the
dealer incurring a large labor charge.  So for those inclined to avoid spending
on new cars, the Honda advantage is not so great over my 77.  Here stainless
steel exhaust and brake systems in the 77 have helped keep the maintenance
level closer to the next century car. 

With radial tires, heavy duty front and rear sway bars, and bushing replacement,
handling of my 60s cars was good.  Bruce Roe

[wrench]

I drive my 51 sedan at highway speeds regularly...it is comfortable and steers and stops...the vehicle is mostly original and does well. It just takes a while to build up steam and get to highway speed...

I was driving the Caddy down the highway at 70 and thought to myself, 'i really need to put seat belts in this thing' and had visions of all sorts of problems if something went wrong.

Then i thought, "jeez I do 70 on my motorcycle all the time and it doesn't have seat belts and would go to sh** pretty quick."

So, sooner or later i will install seat belts, but i don't panic about not having them...

Another safety briefing involves telling my grandson not to lean against the door while the vehicle is moving. He got all wide eyed and was surprised that i would allow him to ride in such an unsafe contraption...

You should have seen the look on his face when i had to pump the brakes on my old 58 apache...he was like 'Why are you doing that?'...

[Jay Friedman]

Just came back from the CLC Fall Festival at the Gilmore Museum in Hickory Corners, Michigan.  Drove my '49 there from the Atlanta GA area 1,500 miles round trip.  Cruised at 55-65 mph on the interstates.  (I-65 in Indiana is awful, and going through Nashville and Louisville during rush hour is not easy.)  Did it in 3 easy days each way.  It was sometimes hot with no AC.  Did spend lots of $ on ethanol-free fuel but the upside was that I had no problems.

[dochawk]

Calling one of these old cars safe because of weight, heavier steel and bigger bumpers is a falsehood.  Theres a video online of a 59 chevy impala or bel air hitting a new malibu head on.  The 59 passengers were killed on impact when their heads smacked the dash and windshield, which crumpled into the cab.

I forget whether it was NTSB, the insurance organization, or someone wiles, but there was a controlled (and filmed) collision running a '57 or '59 into a model from 50 years later.

The older vehicle fared better, as such things go, but the dummies in the newer car fared far better.

That said . . . with the same or similar safety features, the heavier car wins.  I call this, "The law of conservation of metal."

In a collision with a fixed object (effectively infinite mass, such as the massive blocks used for collision tests), the mass of the vehicle isn't that important, as the energy absorbed by the passenger remained constant with vehicle mass (the total energy increases proportionally as total mass goes up).

But with an unfixed other object, the energy story is different.  In the simplest case of the car being at rest and being struck, it absorbs energy, and the passenger absorbs a fraction of of the energy in the passenger's fraction of the total mass of passenger and car.  So a 200 lb passenger in a one ton car is about 1/10 the weight, but only 1/20th of the total mass of a two ton car, or a 30th of a 3 ton car.

Weight is not the only factor, but it's a very important one, possibly the most important single factor.

Now, make a three ton car with modern features . . .

[OK]

The video some are mentioning is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U
It shows a crash between a 2009 Chevy Malibu and a 1959 Chevy Bel Air.  Both weigh around 3600 pounds.  Pretty chilling to see. And a good reminder to be extremely careful out there. 

I have a '38 LaSalle on bias plys and a '49 Cadillac on radials, and the difference in driving is immense.  The '49 feels mostly like a modern car; the '38 feels much less controlled and much more, well, antique.

[The Tassie Devil(le)]

The secret is not to have a crash.

If everyone drove to conditions, and was attentive to everything, then there would be no need for Insurance Companies and the like.

But, people don't, and crashes occur, and someone is always at fault, and employment is maintained in all the affiliated industries.

Older cars can be enjoyed, amongst the new cars, and at least, one can find their older car when it is parked at the Supermarket.   Just have to get the Car Park designers to make car parks for everyone, and not tiny little cars.

Bruce.