Author Topic: For Discussion Purposes (only?)  (Read 464 times)

Offline James Landi

  • Posts: 2383
  • 2007 XLR
  • Name: James Landi
For Discussion Purposes (only?)
« on: January 31, 2021, 08:16:41 AM »
https://www.hagerty.com/media/magazine-features/two-cadillacs-bear-witness-to-the-reinvention-of-the-car-in-the-1970s-and-80s/?utm_source=SFMC&utm_medium=email&utm_content=21_January_28_Newsletter_NewDD

Interesting coincidence--Jeff Shively's panegyric to "New Wave Cadillacs" in the club's magazine and this article in Hagerty's magazine.     THoughts?    James

Offline Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621

  • Posts: 7039
  • Name: Eric DeVirgilis
Re: For Discussion Purposes (only?)
« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2021, 11:53:49 AM »
Saw that on FB. Agreed with Al Haas about going too far (with downsizing) this generation. Must've taken me months before I could look at one without laughing when they appeared mid/late '84.

However these were not 42" shorter than a '76 as claimed.
A Cadillac Motorcar is a Possession for which there is no Acceptable Substitute

Offline jdemerson

  • 1952 Cadillac 6219X Vermont -- Emerson
  • Posts: 864
  • Very large collection of Cadillac sales brochures
  • CLC Number: 26790
  • Name: John D Emerson
Re: For Discussion Purposes (only?)
« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2021, 07:37:50 AM »
The article from Hagerty is interesting and makes some good points. But there are also some places where it misses the boat.

In his book published in early 1979, John DeLorean did write, “There hadn’t been a meaningful innovation in the industry since the automatic transmission and power steering in 1949.”  The author of the Hagerty article seems to accept that assessment, but I don't. As the owner of a 1952 Cadillac, when I compare it to a late 60s model or a late 70s rear-drive Cadillac model, I think the improvements and many innovations are most impressive. (And, yes, I love the '52!)

Eric is right that the difference in length from 1976 to 1986 "full-size" Cadillacs is NOT 42 inches. It's under 36 inches for the DeVille series. And a good portion of that change came with the 1977-79 generation rear-drive cars. The article mentions the 1977 downsizing, but it may not get as much press as it deserves, given the general topic of substantive "improvements" from mid-70s to mid-80s.

I smiled when I read, "Indeed, the irony was that the new <1985-86> Cadillac was a true leap forward in almost every measurable way."  I could accept a statement like that as being objective when comparing 1975-76 rear-drive models to 1977-80 models (although many collector enthusiasts would surely disagree). But were the 1985-86 models a "true leap forward" from the rear-drive models of 1977-84?  Hmmm... 

John Emerson
John Emerson
Middlebury, Vermont
CLC member #26790
1952 Series 6219X
http://bit.ly/21AGnvn

Offline Big Apple Caddy

  • Posts: 1332
  • Name: R. Langley
Re: For Discussion Purposes (only?)
« Reply #3 on: February 01, 2021, 09:15:16 AM »
Some of the selling points of the all-new 1985 Cadillac DeVille/Fleetwood, marketed as the "Cadillac of tomorrow", at the time were:
*Front-wheel drive for impressive traction
*The first and only transverse-mounted V8 engine in any front-wheel drive production car in the world
*Four wheel independent suspension
*Significantly tighter turning radius
*Retained accessory power feature supplying power for up to ten minutes after ignition is turned off
*Advanced aerodynamic design
*Full six passenger seating capacity
*More front legroom and headroom than its predecessor
*Door into roof design for custom tailored experience, reduced wind resistance and ease of entry/exit
*Extensive simplification of electronics for increased dependability
*Double coat of clear enamel
*Comprehensive application of anti-corrosion technology
*Impressive fuel efficiency from gasoline and diesel engine options
*4 years/50,000 miles warranty

Keep in mind, these cars first went on sale nearly 37 years ago.  Speaking of sales, Cadillac sold between approximately 152,000 and 198,000 of these cars each model year between 1985 and 1988.

Offline James Landi

  • Posts: 2383
  • 2007 XLR
  • Name: James Landi
Re: For Discussion Purposes (only?)
« Reply #4 on: February 01, 2021, 09:57:57 AM »

"I smiled when I read, "Indeed, the irony was that the new <1985-86> Cadillac was a true leap forward in almost every measurable way."  I could accept a statement like that as being objective when comparing 1975-76 rear-drive models to 1977-80 models (although many collector enthusiasts would surely disagree). But were the 1985-86 models a "true leap forward" from the rear-drive models of 1977-84?  Hmmm... " Mr. Emerson



TO put a finer point on Mr. Emerson's smile, my personal observation having owned many used Cadillacs throughout my life, and most pointedly the 70's through the "new wave models" of the mid 80's, Cadillac did indeed make many significant changes in engineering during this difficult design transition period, and from the very durable, full sized 70's, that had weakness in body metal corrosion and rust, through the early 80's with attempts to use the 4100 HT engine in somewhat downsized cars that were still too heavy for those light duty engines, until Cadillac evolved the "new wave" 85/86 sufficiently lighter cars, there were so many, many changes. For any fortunate individual who has a 70's, 78/79, 82/84 and 86/87, they are very different Cadillacs, all with intrinsic appeal and design, all created to maintain styling cues and driving dynamics that made them
Cadillacs.   James 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13