Jack Baruth's 2011 review of the 1976 Cadillac Fleetwood Sixty Special Talisman

[67_Eldo]

Here:

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/07/review-1976-cadillac-fleetwood-sixty-special-talisman/

[Big Apple Caddy]

I wouldn't say "The public had barely accepted the 1977 de Ville....." as the author suggests.  The 1977-79s had sold well.  Even the smaller FWD DeVilles that followed in the 1980s sold pretty well especially given that they had showroom competition from the RWD Fleetwood Brougham/Brougham still offered at the time.

[D.Smith]

The public had barely accepted the 1977 de Ville

He clearly has no idea what he is talking about.

The sales of the all-new downsized 1977s were much better than in 1976.

1976 Coupe deVille: 114,482
1977 Coupe deVille: 138,750

1976 Sedan deVille: 67,677
1977 Sedan deVille: 95,421

1976 Brougham: 24,500
1977 Brougham: 28,000

[Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621]

He clearly has no idea what he is talking about.

...and on more fronts than just sales figures. 

[D.Smith]

 A new Seville, basically a Chevy Nova with leather,
 

UGH.   Yet another uneducated statement.   The first generation Sevilles only shared the front sub frame, rear sub frame cross members and rear compartment floor pan with the other X-body cars. 

[Scot Minesinger]

The article was worthless, much talk about nothing.  This was one of those type of articles about cars, home projects and other somewhat technical items authored by not technical people in a somewhat clueless manner as a very weak attempt at humor appealing to the even more less technical.  The photos were nice.  I could not read thru the article (just skimmed it quick) because it was so subjective, boring and inaccurate.

[jdemerson]

Thanks for sharing this.

The '76 big Cadillacs were the culmination of an era. Although I believe the '77-'79s were better cars in most ways, they may not achieve the collector-car status of Cadillac from 1976 and earlier. Baruth didn't "get it right" with his comments on the 1977s!

I'd choose a '68 as my favorite Cadillac sedan over the period 1961 through 1976. It had many advanced safety features including front disk brakes, the new 472, stacked headlights, yet still had vent windows. And it had more usable power than the 76s. In general, 1965-1970 was a wonderful era for Fleetwood Sedans.

Comparing any full-size Cadillac of vintage 1968 or 1976 or 1977 to a 1984 FWD Cadillac Limousine seems pointless and silly. What about comparing it to the 1991 or 1992 Brougham with 5.7 lite engine? Or perhaps to the Fleetwoods that immediately followed?

John Emerson
1952 Cadillac Sedan 6219X

[cadillacmike68]

Thanks for sharing this.

The '76 big Cadillacs were the culmination of an era. Although I believe the '77-'79s were better cars in most ways, they may not achieve the collector-car status of Cadillac from 1976 and earlier. Baruth didn't "get it right" with his comments on the 1977s!

I'd choose a '68 as my favorite Cadillac sedan over the period 1961 through 1976. It had many advanced safety features including front disk brakes, the new 472, stacked headlights, yet still had vent windows. And it had more usable power than the 76s. In general, 1965-1970 was a wonderful era for Fleetwood Sedans.

1965-1070 was a great era for All Cadillacs.

And yes, that blogger is  typical of uneducated fools who know nothing. Reminds me of a similar blog about 1959s.


Comparing any full-size Cadillac of vintage 1968 or 1976 or 1977 to a 1984 FWD Cadillac Limousine seems pointless and silly. What about comparing it to the 1991 or 1992 Brougham with 5.7 lite engine? Or perhaps to the Fleetwoods that immediately followed?

John Emerson
1952 Cadillac Sedan 6219X