News:

Due to a technical issue, some recently uploaded pictures have been lost. We are investigating why this happened but the issue has been resolved so that future uploads should be safe.  You can also Modify your post (MORE...) and re-upload the pictures in your post.

Main Menu

A Word about the 1967 Cadillac Interior

Started by Evan Wojtkiewicz, January 23, 2016, 06:32:11 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Evan Wojtkiewicz



Every time a conversation on most any car blog mentions the point where Cadillac quality went downhill, somebody usually points to the interiors of the 1967 line as the beginning of the end. Possibly because of the dashboard and instrument panel. Ladies and gentleman, I have unequivocal proof that that is just not true. From a casual glance, the main cluster bezel is primarily flat black with a chrome finish around the edge. People, I'm here to tell you that the bezel is actually one giant piece of beautifully chromed pot metal beneath that flat black paint. 

As part of my efforts to restore the dash cluster (I'm genuinely sorry if you're tired of hearing about it by now), I've been considering having my dash bezel re-chromed. I've taken it to a few platers in the Detroit area: shops with great reputations. They don't seem to want anything to do with it. The consensus is that it is such a detailed and complex piece that it would be difficult to re-plate to a high standard for an economically acceptable amount. At least that's what they told me.

The reason that it's perceived as cheap is that we've been trained by the last 40 years of automotive interiors to believe that materials with similar finishes to this are always plastic. That was true for Cadillac starting in 1969, though. Why did they paint it? My only possible explanation is that it was done to reduce glare. The impending safety regulations going into effect may have made it a last-minute decision. Looking closely at the Cadillac sales booklet rendering above, it appears that the bezel originally was intended to be left bare chrome.



Not since that time could any automotive designers get away with speccing a piece so expensive, complicated, and heavy, only to paint 95% of it flat black.

Furthermore, I can assure you that virtually everything else is of similar expense and heft. The switchgear, trim inlays, and door panels are all Cadillac grade. Except for the speedometer faces. With every hour I work on it I curse the soul of the GM engineer careless enough to predispose the cluster to the rust that ruined my gauges.

Another issue is that it's nowhere near as flashy as the dashboards of previous years. It is, however, a study in period industrial design. It has a somewhat international clean look to it, which doesn't jive very well with the upholstery theme (at least in my opinion). I have come to the conclusion that the dashboard was designed primarily with the Eldorado interior in mind with the bulk of the DeVille interior being designed separately to the contemporary customer's tastes. Strangely enough, I like the Calais seats and door panels much better. But I digress.

You can't actually put your hands on any hard plastic in the cabin. Technically, there's vinyl in multiple spots and the lenses are clear plastic, but that's it. The only other plastic piece is the inner bezel which is behind lens, surrounding the speedometer and extending to the map light (it has the Cadillac script imprinted on it).

The one concession I will make is that the steering wheel (especially the horn pad) looks half-baked and chintzy. The crest is crooked on mine, for example. The metallic tape inlay on the horn pad is also a cheap tack-on that didn't age well.

Just my $0.02. Thanks for reading it.
-Evan
CLC 29623

1967 DeVille convertible

Scot Minesinger

Evan,

I have a 1970 Cadillac.  One of the advantages of the 1967-68 Cadillacs over the 1969-70 is the better dash IMO.  The 1960's -1970's Cadillacs are great.  Since I have one I can say that do not care for the dash from 1969-73 in Cadillacs.  The 1968 and earlier and 1974 and newer are much better.  I like a 1967 interior in a Cadillac.  The 69-70 seats are really cool though, and so comfortable.

The way better dash starting in 1974 is evidence that Cadillac was not cheapening things at this time.

However, I think 1975 was the first year where the factory assembly and body panel alignment suffered lack of proper labor and time.  Generally I notice the 1974 Cadillac with much better factory panel alignment than 1975 and 1976.  You can spend a few days on a 75 or 76 Cadillac and make it better.

It seems to me that the 1977 and newer is where quality really deteriorated.  The paint quality was terrible.  Many other parts and assemblies were not equal in quality and durability to the previous models.  However by the mid 1980's GM got the message, put the quality back in.  I noticed that my 1985 Caprice was infinitely better built than my 1978 Olds Delta 88. 
Fairfax Station, VA  22039 (Washington DC Sub)
1970 Cadillac DeVille Convertible
1970 Cadillac Sedan DeVille
1970 four door Convertible w/Cadillac Warranty

cadillactim

The 1965 bezel was all chrome, and in 1966 the satin black finish covered most of the same bezel. Considering the cars were designed at least 3 years ahead the 67 bezel could have originally intended to be all chrome.

Having dismantled many of the 60s and 70s Cadillacs, there is a night and day difference in the use of plastic between the 68 and 69 models. However, some metal pieces on the 67 was replaced by plastic in 68. For example the chrome bead above the glove box is metal on the 67, but plastic on the 68.

The door panels were changed sometime in 68 to vacuum formed panels which can't be duplicated in most upholstery shops. The 67 panels were still the older style that could be recovered at a local shop. Although I did remove panels from a 68 that were the two piece design from the factory that was not vacuum formed.

I see some cost saving measures on the interiors (what at times is considered cheapened ) beginning in 68, and very noticeable in 69.

Tim
Tim Groves

Evan Wojtkiewicz

#3
Thanks Scott,

I really do like the '69-'70s and there was one I considered before buying mine. I really do like the dashboard design, but bizarrely enough, it was the steering wheel design I couldn't get past for some reason. In cars of those years in my price range, the dash and steering wheel plastic always looked aged and dried out. I doubt that's the case with your cars, but if it is, I've since discovered that Neosporin can work wonders on discolored and dried plastic. Vaseline is basically the same of course, but I think it lacks the extra moisturizers that seem to make a difference.

One of the reasons I fixated on a '67 was the vanity plate possibility: EVANS6T7. Ironically, mine came with original 1967 plates, so that never happened. :D

Thanks Tim,

The door panels in '68s are one of the main reasons I went with a '67. As much as I wanted a 472-powered car, I couldn't find one in my budget with decent door panels. Notice how I didn't mention the '68 models ;). But seriously, they're all great cars.

One of the things that annoyed me (and I'm sure some Cadillac buyers that year) is that the '67 Buick (and even some Pontiac) interiors seemed more cohesive and well-done. Another concession I'll make is that the '67 interior was largely devoid of those well thought out gee-whiz details that Cadillacs and other GM cars had in the years before.

For some interesting reading, here's an article in Automobile Magazine about Blaine Jenkins, a GM interior designer at the time.
http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/1203_inside_man_blaine_jenkins/
CLC 29623

1967 DeVille convertible

Evan Wojtkiewicz

One more thing: if I were to get it re-chromed, I'd seriously consider leaving it unpainted as originally intended by the designers. Wayne Kady is a member of my local chapter, so I may have to ask him about that.

I could also repaint it silver instead of black. That's an annoying thing about being a student of design restoring a classic (my degree is in Architecture). I see an opportunity to subtly improve the design of something, but going against factory original can be considered a cardinal sin.
CLC 29623

1967 DeVille convertible

Scot Minesinger

Evan,

I'm an engineer and the 472 engine trumped the better style of the 67 interior.  Given that I drive mine 3 to 4k miles per year in traffic, a 66 and older is off the table because 67 was first year of collapsible steering column.  This is probably the best safety feature if you could pick only one.  You know us engineers always go for function over form and have bad taste.  On a 1970 the steering pad is easy to get looking good, but I agree it should be same color of dash or something, it is not that great of a look.

Best to keep it original if you want to keep your options open, especially if it is a convertible.  I'm getting my 1970 SDV reupholstered and I really would like to do it in the 1969 Fleetwood pattern instead of std 1970 sedan pattern.  I bought the seats from a 1969 Fleetwood parts car for cheap so the pattern can be duplicated.  A sedan is not that valuable, but this is such a nice low mileage original I feel guilty not using correct factory pattern.  I'm going to save the original factor seats though if I change it.  It is unlikely that I will be selling the SDV anytime soon.  It is perfect for driving a classic car when it is 45'F and sunny, as a closed car is better driving than a convertible when top is up.
Fairfax Station, VA  22039 (Washington DC Sub)
1970 Cadillac DeVille Convertible
1970 Cadillac Sedan DeVille
1970 four door Convertible w/Cadillac Warranty

Andrew Wall CLC#10638

I have owned a 67 Eldorado for 8 years (sold in 1997) and a 1968 Deville convertible for 12 years, sold in 2012.  Based upon Maurice Hendry's book on Cadillac history and my personal observation of what is in a junk yard (often many years ago), I think 1969 was the beginning of a general decline in GM interior quality.  I have owned a 1979 Fleetwood and 1981 Eldorado, they are obviously less durable.  I would distinguish between build quality and material quality.

In reality, we buy what we find is acceptable.  From an engineering perspective, I loved my 79 Fleetwood Brougham d'elegance best of all.  It was a wonderful car, even though the trim quality was mediocre by modern standards.  That's what happens when a manufacturer is pumping out a record volume, arrogant, and making money had over fist.  As we know, the tide turned in the 1980's.  I would not hesitate to buy a 1969-70 Cadillac that I loved.  With time, original build quality becomes less relevant.

64\/54Cadillacking

The last truly wonderful, chrome laden, high quality interiors were the 64 or 65 Cadillacs. Not to rain on anyone's parade that owns a 67 on up Cadillac, but I could easily tell the difference in build quality going from my previously owned, 68 Coupe Deville, to my current 64 Deville.

The doors and hood are heavier on the 64's, the dash and door panels are of much higher quality than the 68, everything is properly fitted and the leather seats were also of higher quality.

As much as I loved my 68 for it's performance having the 472 under the hood, the interior was a let down. By 70, the interiors were horribly bland besides for the seats.

It seems like Cadillac just didn't give a damn about quality from 69-73, then started to improve in 74 and 5 with the better looking dash and interior. My other Cadillac was a 72 Sedan Deville, and as great of a car it was mechanically, the body construction, fit and finish, and ride quality sucked.

Now the 67's still had some quality built into them, they're definitely better styled, and used less plastic than in 68, but by 67, the cool glitzy interiors of the past came to an end. This isn't specifically a Cadillac problem either, but an industry wide one that was forced by you know who.

Cadillac's rival, Lincoln, was no different, although their interiors were a little better than Cad in quality around that time, but even by 67, Lincoln's beautifully designed interiors from 61-65, completely vanished by 66. 65 most likely being the last great interior Lincoln made in overall execution and styling. Nothing as cool or elegant came afterwards. Just more and more plastic and the absence of brightwork.

What is interesting is that because I own a 78 Lincoln Continental, this topic sorta relates to how I feel about the car. As wonderful and amazing the car rides and drives, I hate the DASHBOARD!! It's utterly cheap and made of the flimsiest plastics you can imagine especially around the steering wheel. There's literally nothing substantial about it.

But on the other hand, the door panels, and seat construction is top notch, and the door panels are nicely padded. Lincoln really trumped Cadillac in this regard, because I think starting in 69 or 70, Cadillac started to use that horrible injection molded plastic for the lower portion of the armrest and door panel that always tented to crack over time. Also, the door pull straps were weak and would come apart from the entire mounting points. This definitely was a cost cutting measure by the company and it showed.

Lincolns in the 70's didn't suffer from this problem as they used a more rubbery type material for the armrest that is thickly padded. and door pull straps that used much stronger anchoring points.

So as much as I despise the dash on my 78 Conti, I have learned to live with it, and embrace it's other qualities. Both brands built great cars, and both brand suffered the same fate when it came to their downfall.

Currently Rides:
1964 Sedan Deville
1954 Cadillac Fleetwood 60 Special
1979 Lincoln Mark V Cartier Designer Series
2007 Lexus LS 460L (extended wheelbase edition)

Previous Rides:
1987 Brougham D' Elegance
1994 Fleetwood Bro
1972 Sedan Deville
1968 Coupe Deville
1961 Lincoln Continental
1993 Lincoln Town Car Signature Series
1978 Lincoln Continental ( R.I.P.) 1978-2024 😞

66 Eldo

#8
Hindsight is 20/20. I have read opinions here stating that 66 was the last good looking dash and interior for Cadillac because after 66, the government safety regs forced the manufacturers to use less metal. Probably true but the 69 and 70 dashboards although when critiqued today as very bland, were a clean and fresh design when new. "Spirit of the 70s"?  ;) They went to simpler all dummy light driver information as most American manufacturers did in that era.

My father bought a 70 new and I vividly remember riding in it as a kid. One day in about 1972, my brother and I went to work with him at our restaurant. An employee was using his car and we had to borrow a car from our manager to take me and my brother home. It was a 68 CDV and was in good shape. I remember riding in that 68 and studying its dash.  At that time, the 68 dash design made the car look and feel so old compared to our 70.  So I assume the 69 and 70 dashes were just appropriate for the style in that time.

When you look at the dash evolution of Cadillac in the late 60s, they were moving to a driver central design and went too far in 69 and 70. In 71, they backed off a little and widened the driver's side gauge cluster and put the clock on the passenger side which balanced things out some. A positive feature of the 69 and 70 dash is the bin style glove box. Have one too on my 66 and they are nice.  Of course, just my opinion.     

Scot Minesinger

64CaddieLacky and all,

On of my friends hates the way his 1970 Cadillac drives and thinks the 1982 is infinitely better, even with a 4.1.  I told him he was crazy and had him drive my 1970 Cadillac and I would shut up if he did not agree with me after driving mine.  He said it was nice and drove amazing.  His turns out has 100k miles and every suspension part is original, including made in USA shocks.

Often I read, 1971, 1968, or whatever year Cadillac did not drive well.  That was because more than likely due to poor mechanical condition.  The 1965-1996 RWD Cadillacs, engine performance aside (those 4.1) all drove great.  It is basically a similar suspension with minor refinements.  I have never driven a 64 and older, but those are probably nice when in good repair too. 

It cannot be emphasized enough that rubber is not a lifetime product and deteriorates due both use and especially age.  Any 1976 Cadillac or older probably should require that the control arm bushings (front and rear), front anti-sway bar bushings (end and frame), shocks, tires, and rubber body to frame bushings must all be in good current repair (probably all replaced- I would).  Then the lower ball joints especially are not durable.  The quickest bushings to fail seem to be upper control arm in front.

Back to Cadillac dashboards, it seems everyone agrees that generally dashes were pretty good up until 67, cheapened a little in 68, crashed and burned from 69-73, and then back to a decent dash in 74 and future.  Yes, I agree the Lincoln dash for the continental was great (I like the 66-69 too) from 61 thru 76, although the 70 thru 76 was the best.  Don't care much for the Lincoln Mark dash from 69 and newer.  The best dash of any car I ever seen and/or drove in all of my life is the 64-66 Thunderbird.  The gauges and speedometer was a home run.  Plus the 64-66 T-bird console and bucket seats were amazing too.
Fairfax Station, VA  22039 (Washington DC Sub)
1970 Cadillac DeVille Convertible
1970 Cadillac Sedan DeVille
1970 four door Convertible w/Cadillac Warranty

jwwseville60

1960 Eldorado Seville, Copper, "IKE"
1961 CDV, gold, "Goldfinger"
1964 Eldorado, Turquoise, "Billy the Squid"
1963 De Ville Station Wagon Vista roof, silver blue, "Race Bannon"
1963 Fleetwood 60S, turquoise, "The Miami Special"
1959 Sedan Deville flat top, tan, "Jupiter-2"
1947 Caddy Sedanette 62, black, "Johnny Cash"
1970 ASC Fleetwood wagon, dark blue, "Iron Maiden"
Lifetime CLC

Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621

A Cadillac Motorcar is a Possession for which there is no Acceptable Substitute