Ownership experience 50's vs 60's

[CadillacRob]

I have a series 61 1950 sedan, manual everything, and wore out, unrestored mostly.  I also have a 56 coupe deville which is not road worthy, and has fought me every step of the way.

A friend of mine just traded his 1965 Malibu sedan for a 1964 Buick Electra 225.  He just let me drive it, and also we cruised around in it for a little while.  This is a particularly clean, well taken care of car with only 65k miles on it (has the 445 nailhead engine).

This is easily the nicest riding/driving classic I've ever been in. I mean it absorbs bumps and rides exceptionally well.  Quiet too.  It'll burn rubber and get up and go!  Not only that, but parts are more affordable Im seeing compared to 50's stuff.  This car could easily be a daily driver, even in our busy modern traffic.

Makes me wonder if I should look at getting a 60's Cadillac?  Their parts are cheaper than the 50's. My buddy with the Buick owns a shop and he said to keep my distance from them.  He said they're money pits and he had a buddy with nothing but problems from his.

I can't imagine they're any worse than a mid 60's Buick.

Either way, thoroughly impressed with how well that Buick rode.

[76eldo]

Art,

Well said. There were big advances and changes between decades from the 50's to the 60's
Mid 60's GM big cars have a great ride, road feel, and accessories like AC that make them desirable.
There's a big difference in the ride of a 60 as compared to a 70 for sure. I also have a 66 Toronado in pretty nice shape which is a great running car that's fun to drive.

Riding in a different car can really open your eyes to what you like in a collector car.

Brian

[Scot Minesinger]

You may be being too hard on your 1950 Cadillacs.  I drive 1970 Cadillacs regularly and they are wonderful to drive - how a car should drive in my mind.  Anyway I recently drove a 1954 Cadillac in good mechanical repair and it was quite enjoyable.  Never driven one before and was not expecting it to have such a nice feel.  Once you get into 1968 Cadillacs and newer - say up to 1976 with the 472/500 block, the mechanical parts are all available for the most part at reasonable cost from just about any auto parts store- just got to watch quality.  The late 1960's Cadillac has just about everything a new car has except air bags ABS and cup holders.  It has the collapsible steering column, door beams, a/c, tilt wheel, power everything and disc brakes.  Fix up your 1950's Cadillacs and I'm sure they will bring some joy to your classic car driving experience. 

BTW in 2005 when I bought my 1970 DVC was just looking for a RWD V-8 convertible that my family of 5 could all ride in - and well had to go back to 1970 to buy one, otherwise might have bought newer (like 2003).  That is how it started, now I own three 1970 Cadillacs.

[Greg Powers]

The first question is what do you want from your Cadillac? Are you looking for something with that 1950's style and heavy chrome adornment or would you prefer a slightly more reserved style of the mid-1960's that has road manners more like a modern car? I own a 1954 series 62 Sedan and a 1958 Fleetwood Sixty Special that I love the styling and the chrome to excess (especially the 1958) but if I want to get out and cruise around I always chose my 1963 Series 62 convertible (recently sold) or my 1970 Fleetwood Brougham. The parts are easier to locate for the newer Cadillacs (1960s and 1970s) but my 1954 doesn't have nearly as many electrical issues as the newer models. The secret is and always has been to buy what you love and what suits your needs. As far as the differences in Buick Electra or Oldsmobile 98 or Cadillac Deville, all were the best GM had to offer. 

[CadillacRob]

Generally I prefer the 50's curves and styling, but it'd sure be nice to drive and ride the way that Buick did.  Much more drivable in modern traffic.  I think the only way I'd get the best of both worlds is going fully custom - different drivetrain, electric wipers, etc.  That's ok though.  I'll let them be what they are, and I'll look for a 60's car to drive more regularly.

[Jay Friedman]

I guess it's a matter of personal preference and what you are used to.  I have a '49 Series 61 club coupe, also manual everything, which I drive regularly including long trips.  It handles well, aided by a thicker front stabilizer bar meant for a limo and a hearse that I installed.  With its well-tuned 331 it accelerates powerfully, easily cruises at interstate speeds and also brakes very well.  In fact, I prefer it to my modern daily driver.  I grew up driving cars like it in the '50s and wasn't exposed to power features until much later in life when I could afford a new car. 

The only feature lacking on my '49 is AC, so my wife wisely won't accompany me in the summer.

[CadillacRob]

I guess it's a matter of personal preference and what you are used to.  I have a '49 Series 61 club coupe, also manual everything, which I drive regularly including long trips.  It handles well, aided by a thicker front stabilizer bar meant for a limo and a hearse that I installed.  With its well-tuned 331 it accelerates powerfully, easily cruises at interstate speeds and also brakes very well.  In fact, I prefer it to my modern daily driver.  I grew up driving cars like it in the '50s and wasn't exposed to power features until much later in life when I could afford a new car. 

The only feature lacking on my '49 is AC, so my wife wisely won't accompany me in the summer.

I find that hard to believe.  I have a 1950 series 61 sedan.  Granted it's unrestored and tired, but brand new the 331 only made around 160 HP and it is positively screaming at 65 mph plus.

[Chas]

Look down at my sig line....I currently have a 1964 Buick Electra (like your buddy's) along with a couple of 1960's era Cadillac's. First off, it's not a 445 c.i. nailhead. It's a 401. The 445 on the air cleaner refers to the ft. pounds of torque the motor puts out. In my opinion, they all ride and drive about the same. Suspension is pretty much the same (coils all around, unequal length A arms up front, 4 bar unequal length trailing arms in the rear). Weight is about equal. Factory says the Cadillac's have about 25 more horsepower each year than the Buick's. Mechanical parts cost about the same, although I'm not sure on the body pieces. Buick trim pieces and emblems can only be found in a boneyard. Big aftermarket for Cadillac beauty pieces. I can see where someone might get the idea that the Buick's are more uncomplicated. Everything that is standard in a Cadillac was an option on the big Buick. My '64 Electra doesn't have AC, cruise, or autotronic eye. I can literally grab a sleeping bag and have room to take a nap under the hood. Try that in any mid 1960's Coupe deVille! LIke they say, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". If forced to make a choice, I would take any one of my Cadillac's over the Buick any day of the week. I only bought  it because it came at a price I couldn't pass up.

[CadillacRob]

Yeah, I imagine most GM cars of the same era ride very similar.  The parts cost for Cadillacs dramatically decrease in the mid/late 60s compared to the 50s for some reason.  How does your 63 Impala compare? 

[Dan LeBlanc]

If you think your Series 61 screams on the highway . . . I had a 63 Impala Sedan.  283, with PowerGlide.  At 70mph with highway gearing, you'd think the pistons were going to blow out the top of the engine.  With only 2 speeds, yeah, it would screem.  My 61 Fleetwood with a 4 speed hydramatic . . . no comparison.  It would grunt along happily when compared to the Chevrolet with much more comfortable seating and smoother pillowy ride in the Fleetwood.

[Chas]

Cadillac Rob.......can't even put the '63 Impala in the same discussion. It's more of a "Drag" only car.....light weight springs in the nose, along with 90/10 shocks, no sway bar, no power steering or brakes. Rear is a 9 inch Ford unit with ladder bars. Need to wear a kidney belt when driving this thing!

[Caddy Wizard]

I've had sixteen 1949-1962 Cadillacs.  Many I drove as daily drivers (with or without power steering, power brakes, etc). 

Jay Friedman's comment that a 1949 Cadillac cruises easily at highway speeds, without the engine straining in any way, is 100% on the money.  I've had lots of 49-51 models and these 331 engines with the Carter 2-bbl carbs are great performers.  I've personally driven a 1949 Cadillac at 90 miles per hour, with no straining.

My 1962 was easier to drive, as the power steering was very light and the shifting silky smooth.  The engine had gobs of power.  Suspension was very cushy.  Sure, the 1962 was easier to handle.  But any of these overhead valve engine Cadillac's are great performers. 

Over the last 30 years, I've driven a 1949-1956 Cadillac as a daily driver about 40% of my time, including commuting in heavy traffic in Atlanta, GA.  The cars need to be in "proper nick" as the British would say, but if you have them in good shape, they are very comfortable, reliable, and satisfying to drive.  I'd drive my current 51 anywhere...

[CadillacRob]

Like I said, my 50 is not restored in any way, would even be a rat rod by some standards, but I have the 331 dialed in so well it runs like a sewing machine.  Sits still at idle. 

But maybe I have some short gearing rear end option or something.  I haven't put a tach on it but I'll bet it's turning 35-4000 rpm at 65.

[Richard Sills - CLC #936]

I have a '64 Buick LeSabre and several '60s Cadillacs.  All of these cars are wonderful to drive, and I have found them to be very dependable with just normal maintenance.  I can't think of anything about the '60s Cadillacs that would make them "money pits".  If you need to have major restoration work done, that's expensive no matter what car you are talking about, but if you start out with a very nice, well-cared-for car and maintain it well, you should be OK with any premium GM car of that vintage. 

By the way, I think a '64 Electra 225 in top condition is a great find -- they seem to be more scarce than a similar '64 Cadillac.

[CadillacRob]

We went cruising in the 64 Electra tonight.  Thing just rides and runs great.  4 adults comfortably.  I'll certainly be looking for a 60s GM of some sort as a daily driver.

Question to those who might know:  I'm assuming a 65/66 impala would ride very similarly, and I realize they probably are less optioned than the other GM line up, but are they made any cheaper from a quality standpoint?  Cheaper metal panels, suspension, etc. 

[Scot Minesinger]

Cadillac Rob,

My experience with a 1954 Cadillac was as Jay and Art wrote about their 1949 and earlier 1950's driving experience - no problem - wonderful.  We have all read posts how a 67 Cadillac handles better than a 1968, which of course is not true and likely a comparison of Cadillacs a year apart in vastly different states of repair.  If you fix up your 1950's Cadillac to the point of excellent mechanicals they will drive wonderfully.  The cosmetics of the 1950's is another story, expensive to restore.

If you want to buy a mid 1960's or early 1970's car for the improved road manners then, I would urge you to get one that has parts availability.  1968 and newer GM is likely going to offer fairly good parts availability (may have some trouble with Buick 430 engine - not sure), but by 1970 no problem for sure.  Chevrolet and Cadillac are going to offer more body and trim parts than Pontiac, Olds and Buick for the larger sedans.

[stzomah]

I've had my 56 since high school (I graduated 1977).  Back then, we used to cruise to the Jersey shore in my car.  The Atlantic City Expressway was new then and was a nice straight highway.  Well, yes I buried the spedo multiple times.  At 100+ the 56 coupe would ride like you were on air!  Kick it and it jumped over 120!  The 365 and the 4spd Hydromatic were high speed cruisers.  Remember our newly departed reverend Berry's song Maybellene?

[CadillacRob]

Can't wait , working hard on my 56

[64\/54Cadillacking]

From personal experience, I owned a 68 CD in the past, and currently, own a 64 SD. From my honest opinion, the 68 was a better driver and was more modern in a sense as far as starting up in just going from point A to point B, but the 64 hands down has better quality looks cooler and is better built than the 68 IMO.

60's Cadillac's, for the most part, are extremely reliable and well made, it was probably one of the best decades for Cadillac as far as them having the best of everything. The cars still looked distinct, still had the quality and great styling that made them stand out, and they also have more modern amenities than the 50's Cads, and the powerplants of the 390-429-472 engines high horsepower allowed the heavy cars to fire off the line which made Cadillacs in the 60's great performers, and safer cars to drive overall.

I would definitely recommend any 60's Cadillac, although my favorite decade for Cadillac styling is the 50's for their lavish amounts of chrome, youthful flamboyant looks, but the 60's are more practical, still cool and flashy yet better drivers for longer distance cruising.

[cadillacmike68]

I don't think I ever drove a '50s car - well maybe one of the deuce & 1/2s when I was a lieutenant was made in the '50s. 

I actually prefer the '65 & later styling on Cadillac. The earlier cars were too "bulbous" for my tastes. They were decent looking and Very distinctive, but I like the sharper lines of the late 60s better.

Now the build quality and interiors - those '50s and even '60s cars were Very nicely done cars. Gradually as the 60s wore on, things started disappearing off the cars, like the fold down writing tables in the Brougham (gone in 1968!), all metal trim fasteners (gone after 1967, I think), and then the dreaded plastic bumper fills which literally disintegrated, although these didn't start until the 1970s.