: Dual test drive review: '79 Sedan deVille D'Elegance & '92 Roadmaster Limited Sedan



I~LUV~Caddys8792
09-10-10, 12:30 AM
So as stated in my "2011" thread, a few friends and I met Dave (Bro-Ham) last night for driving, drinks and dinner. He let us drive his 1979 Sedan deVille D'Elegance and his '92 Roadmaster Limited. Here's what I thought.


First, the '79.
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/bcd51ae6.jpg

Colonial yellow, matching velour interior, 104k miles. 425cid 4bbl V8, three speed hydramatic automatic transmission, 2.41:1 rear end.

What blew my mind most about this particular Cadillac is how light on it's feet it felt. The steering, while light by today's standards, still gave plenty of feedback as to what the front end was doing and where it was going. Dave's apartment is on top of a long, winding, steep road and the deVille handled it with surprising aplomb. I didn't feel nervous taking it down or up the hill, and I didn't have to go way under the speed limit to accomplish it either. Obviously, it's no CTS, but for a Cadillac designed during what most would say was it's most outrageous time, it was surprisingly taut. If memory serves me correct, the steering was more direct than that in the early '90s Broughams, and it was most definitely more direct than that in an '80s era Brougham. It rode softer than my buddy Brandon's '91 Brougham D'Elegance 5.7L, but about as soft as my buddy AJ's '91 Brougham 5.0L, and there is a noticeable difference in ride/handling between those two some odd reason. The 350 powered 90-92 Broughams ride rather...."trucklike" and the 5.0 models are always as soft as they should be. My buddy Brandon has owned an '87 and an '88 Brougham, and this '91 Brougham D'Elegance, and he said that the '80s models are definitely the softest riding and the lightest steering.

The 425 doled out plenty of power. At 180hp, you're not gonna set any speed records, but due to the 320 lb/ft of torque it never feels underpowered. It just loafs down the boulevard, breaking nary a sweat, and it accelerates up to highway speeds without much effort at all, but once past 55, going WOT isn't really of much use. I don't seem to remember a difference in flat out acceleration between 3/4 and WOT. The 425 does have a very nice sound at WOT, and around town, if you go WOT and allow it to downshift, it kicks down and moves out quite nicely. This is miles better than a 400 powered Lincoln of the same era, probably on par with the 460 Lincolns, and eons ahead of the HT4100 or 307. Compared to a TBI 350 Brougham (I'll get back to this later in further depth), it's not as quick. The TBI has better throttle response due to the fuel injection, a much steeper rear end, and another gear to enhance overall response and economy. Interestingly enough, the TBI 5.7 and 4BBL 425 have power ratings that are very close:

185hp and 300 lb/ft for the TBI 350
180hp and 320 lb/ft for the 4BBL 425

The 1979 Cadillacs as a whole are one of my favorite years. 1979 saw the introduction of the gorgeous third generation Eldorado, the last year of the much loved first generation Seville (I don't find them attractive nor memorable) and the best year IMO of the downsized pre-facelifted D bodies. I love the fine egg-crate grille, the revised steering wheel, the light burled faux wood grain trim, and the fact it's what Henry Hill drove in Goodfellas. However, I prefer the squared-off roofline on the '80-'92, giving it more of a formal "old money" look, but the 77-79's look more fresh faced and spunky. I'd also argue that the 77-79's look more powerful and assertive, but maybe that's because I know that the 425 is a much more powerful engine than anything offered in the '80s models. Regardless, the 77-92 Brougham and 77-84 deVille is one of Cadillacs best design's ever....right up there with the 79-85 Eldorado. I prefer the sedan format for the 77-79's, but the coupe versions from 1980-85.

The interior on this particular '79 Sedan deVille is beautiful. The velour, pillow topped, button tufted D'Elegance seats feel better than they look, and the shag carpet is deeper than it looks, and is SOOO soft! The DeVille D'Elegance seats are more comfortable than the 80-92 Brougham D'Elegance's, because on the deVille, the pillow top goes all the way up the seatback, whereas on the Brougham, it stops about 2/3 of the way up, right at my shoulder blades. I have not sat in a 77-79 B D'E, so I can't comment on those, but they look divine.

I want one.


Now, the Roadmaster.
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/9ac49879.jpg

Oddly enough, the Roadmaster felt heavier and more clumsy than the deVille. The steering was much lighter and less direct, and it didn't feel as happy down or up that same curvy, steep road. Why a car 13 years newer, slightly smaller and about the same weight would feel clumsier is beyond me.

The TBI 350 has always been a favorite motor of mine. I simply love it. It's only 185hp, but never ever feels underpowered. It's way snappier than the 425, at any speed, and is downright quick out of the hole. I bet it's about as quick as an LT1 Roadmaster from 0-30, but once you get into the higher RPM's of the 1st gear, the LT1 will walk away from it, and keep pulling on you. At about 70 mph, we're sitting at about 2000 RPM, even with the trailer tow package's steep 3:42:1 rear end. Being at 2000 rpm, you're right in the meat of the powerband, so with even a little touch of the throttle, you'll start to accelerate quite readily and it's fun to watch the speedo climb while the tach holds the same RPM. It's definitely quicker than the 425 at any speed.

The interior of the L05 Roadmasters are far superior to the LT1 Roadmasters. I love the REAL dashboard with full instrumentation and big panel of faux wood grain trim. It's like an 12/10ths scale XJ6! The seats are much nicer too, this one was a Limited, and with the velour interior the seats are to die for. You sit IN them, not ON them. They're not super soft like the seats in the '79, but they're very supportive, and with the 3-way lumbar, they should be! But the backrest wraps around you a bit and keeps you bolstered in, for lack of a better term. But, the back seat was a lot softer than the front, not sure why. Very, very comfy though!

Very glad to drive them both, thanks Dave!

Jesda
09-10-10, 12:33 AM
Need interior pics!

ga_etc
09-10-10, 12:58 AM
Especially the Deville.

greencadillacmatt
09-10-10, 01:40 AM
^What they said!

77CDV
09-10-10, 01:57 AM
Slowly, ever so slowly, Chad is lured into the 70s.....

gdwriter
09-10-10, 02:06 AM
Slowly, ever so slowly, Chad is lured into the 70s.....I would say the '77-'79 DeVilles and Fleetwoods are probably the best 70s luxury cars in combining that flashy American style of luxury with decent driving dynamics. No, they're not as distinctive as the Mark IV or V, having driven both, I know which one I'd want to drive.

There's good reason these cars sold as well as they did. They're excellent cars.

Night Wolf
09-10-10, 01:26 PM
My '79 Sedan Deville d'Elegance as Laramie Beige and Ceder Red velour.

I had it for 2.5yrs and 10k miles. I bought it because it was $300, the owner thought the engine was blown, but it wasn't. Car had 84k miles.

I personally really did not like the color/patter of the plastic wood inside, so I changed them from one off a late 80's Brougham - much better. I also bought a NOS 80's Brougham hood ornament with the wreath and smaller crest, I much liked that over the large crest alone style.

I added a factory rear sway bar from a '79 Fleetwood - HUGE difference in handling.

The car never really had a purpose to me. Of course this is just my opinion, but it wasn't old enough to be a "real" classic, like a '68-'76 era DeVille. At the same time it was too old in the way that a late 80's Brougham is modern in a few more areas, and, overall would be a better daily driver. My car had the 2.28:1 axle (IIRC) and while the 425 is peppy and very reliable, it just didn't seem like enough of an improvement in power over the Olds 307. It was quicker, but not enough to justify the big block, IMO.

I used it as a daily driver, and also drove it from NY to FL over the time I had it. I would take it out for drives or cruises, but I much preferred my '93 Coupe as it had a far better sound system.

The '79 looked good in some ways, but bad in others, from the back it just looked too cut off, while the late 80's Brougham had a very well finished design.

The whole time I owned it I kept thinking how it wasn't old enough to be a really fun classic cruiser, but it wasn't new enough to be the late 80's Brougham design I really liked.

Personally I wouldn't seek one out as a dedicated classic cruiser, for that I would go with a '72 Eldorado or similar.

I have been thinking back to the big body Caddys and miss them as I grew up with them, don't see them on the road much at all today. I think if I was to do it again I would go '90-'92, and try to find a d'Elegance, 350 and moon roof. A bit more modern, fuel injection but still the same car.

2006 Tampa meet, car was wrecked the following week.

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/attachments/southeast/17419d1139109915-tampa-mall-rats-06-pdr_1114.jpg

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/attachments/southeast/17418d1139109915-tampa-mall-rats-06-pdr_1113.jpg

Polishing compund did wonders for even a light color

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/attachments/cadillac-forums-lounge-member-introductions/17227d1138595600-go-easy-polishing-compound-okay-pdr_0026.jpg

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/attachments/cadillac-forums-lounge-member-introductions/17229d1138595600-go-easy-polishing-compound-okay-pdr_0031.jpg

Double pinstripes are a must on these cars though, since they do not have the chrome trim down the sides.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x245/NightWolf93/PDR_1050.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x245/NightWolf93/79-1.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x245/NightWolf93/79-3.jpg

*edit* damnit, all this recent talk about Cadillac and GM is making me want another Brougham..... and the '95 Eldorado ETC that I've wanted since I had my '93 Coupe....

hueterm
09-10-10, 01:34 PM
:stirpot:

They don't come in manuals, nor with convertible or zip-off roofs...

Now THERE'S a project....

Shame yours was wrecked -- what happened to it? At least you got some good pics and was able to make it to a meet w/it.

gdwriter
09-10-10, 01:48 PM
I would have happily taken that '79 off your hands had it not been wrecked.

Bro-Ham
09-10-10, 01:55 PM
68265

Here are some interior pictures from both cars. The Cad is Colonial Yellow with matching vinyl top, and a Burnished Gold d'Elegance cloth interior. The Roadmaster is dark blue outside and dark blue cloth inside.

Chad, it was nice to see you again after five years, glad you liked the cars. They are neat old boats and I feel so lucky to have such nifty machines to enjoy. :)

To me, this 79 Cad is the most driveable old car ever. I never get tired of looking at it or driving it, it doesn't break, plus it's always a hit when pulling up to a sidewalk cafe, valet parking at a hot spot, or going to the beach. Everyone loves it! :) The yellow color always gets comments and the increasingly unique body style always gets admiring glances and friendly comments. It's a personal parade float of self enriching luxury and extroverted automotive goodwill. I love it! :)

Thanks Chad for your thoughtful and impressive review of these old cars and hope to see you again soon. I will have the Roadmaster ready for Brandon. :)

Dave

Stingroo
09-10-10, 02:03 PM
Those seats look EPIC.

Bro-Ham
09-10-10, 02:38 PM
Those seats look EPIC.

They don't make 'em like that any more - - too bad... :)

Bro-Ham
09-10-10, 02:55 PM
Slowly, ever so slowly, Chad is lured into the 70s.....

Craig, it's only a matter of time. :)

orconn
09-10-10, 03:18 PM
As I have said, at different time and places, here at the Forums, The introduction of the 1977 Cadillac De Villes and Fleetwood was a real sea change for Cadillac. Not only was the size reduced from the previous '70s models, but far more importantly for me, the driving dynamics reach a whole new level of sophistication for an American luxury car. I drove the "new" 1977 Coupe de Ville the first week it came out and was really impressed with the new Cadillacs relatively compact size and even more the vast improvement in feel and handling left me very impressed. I would have bought one but I had just bought my '76 Seville (which I also really loved) and also liked its' looks better and its' size (I kept it the Seville until the mid eighties and wish I still ahd it today!). By that poit many of my friends had switched to Mercedes 450 SEs and many of them switched back to the new late seventies Cadillacs, and with the engine changes that came in the '80's ended up keeping the '70s Cads a lot longer than they would have normally kept them, because of all the reasons Chad sights for the superiority of those cars. The only problem was that Cadillac only offered these cars as either a sedan or a coupe, the pre-79 Eldorados were pigs personafide and the Sevilles were very expensive and appealed to West and East Coast taste more than other parts of the country .... where big and super flashy still was preferred by Cadillac buyers.

Since there are still so many late '70s Cadillac in good shape and they provide such a nice vintage driving experience, I would recommend them to anyone who wants to own a great old Cadillac at as reasonable price!

Bro-Ham
09-10-10, 06:07 PM
My '79 Sedan Deville d'Elegance as Laramie Beige and Ceder Red velour.

I had it for 2.5yrs and 10k miles. I bought it because it was $300, the owner thought the engine was blown, but it wasn't. Car had 84k miles.

I personally really did not like the color/patter of the plastic wood inside, so I changed them from one off a late 80's Brougham - much better. I also bought a NOS 80's Brougham hood ornament with the wreath and smaller crest, I much liked that over the large crest alone style.

I added a factory rear sway bar from a '79 Fleetwood - HUGE difference in handling.

The car never really had a purpose to me. Of course this is just my opinion, but it wasn't old enough to be a "real" classic, like a '68-'76 era DeVille. At the same time it was too old in the way that a late 80's Brougham is modern in a few more areas, and, overall would be a better daily driver. My car had the 2.28:1 axle (IIRC) and while the 425 is peppy and very reliable, it just didn't seem like enough of an improvement in power over the Olds 307. It was quicker, but not enough to justify the big block, IMO.

I used it as a daily driver, and also drove it from NY to FL over the time I had it. I would take it out for drives or cruises, but I much preferred my '93 Coupe as it had a far better sound system.

The '79 looked good in some ways, but bad in others, from the back it just looked too cut off, while the late 80's Brougham had a very well finished design.

The whole time I owned it I kept thinking how it wasn't old enough to be a really fun classic cruiser, but it wasn't new enough to be the late 80's Brougham design I really liked.

Personally I wouldn't seek one out as a dedicated classic cruiser, for that I would go with a '72 Eldorado or similar.

I have been thinking back to the big body Caddys and miss them as I grew up with them, don't see them on the road much at all today. I think if I was to do it again I would go '90-'92, and try to find a d'Elegance, 350 and moon roof. A bit more modern, fuel injection but still the same car.

2006 Tampa meet, car was wrecked the following week.

Double pinstripes are a must on these cars though, since they do not have the chrome trim down the sides.

*edit* damnit, all this recent talk about Cadillac and GM is making me want another Brougham..... and the '95 Eldorado ETC that I've wanted since I had my '93 Coupe....

This sure sounds like a bunch of drivel - - five years ago when we first met on this forum you couldn't shut up about your 79 Cad and the love affair you were having with it. :)

Bro-Ham
09-10-10, 06:16 PM
As I have said, at different time and places, here at the Forums, The introduction of the 1977 Cadillac De Villes and Fleetwood was a real sea change for Cadillac. Not only was the size reduced from the previous '70s models, but far more importantly for me, the driving dynamics reach a whole new level of sophistication for an American luxury car. I drove the "new" 1977 Coupe de Ville the first week it came out and was really impressed with the new Cadillacs relatively compact size and even more the vast improvement in feel and handling left me very impressed. I would have bought one but I had just bought my '76 Seville (which I also really loved) and also liked its' looks better and its' size (I kept it the Seville until the mid eighties and wish I still ahd it today!). By that poit many of my friends had switched to Mercedes 450 SEs and many of them switched back to the new late seventies Cadillacs, and with the engine changes that came in the '80's ended up keeping the '70s Cads a lot longer than they would have normally kept them, because of all the reasons Chad sights for the superiority of those cars. The only problem was that Cadillac only offered these cars as either a sedan or a coupe, the pre-79 Eldorados were pigs personafide and the Sevilles were very expensive and appealed to West and East Coast taste more than other parts of the country .... where big and super flashy still was preferred by Cadillac buyers.

Since there are still so many late '70s Cadillac in good shape and they provide such a nice vintage driving experience, I would recommend them to anyone who wants to own a great old Cadillac at as reasonable price!

Orr, how true it is. My folks went the distance in their 77 and 78 deVilles until going Mercedes in the mid and late 1980's. The MB's before 1977 were a whole different world - supreme road competence but no creature comforts. No wonder you liked your 76 Seville so much, those cars were such a big deal back in the day with American car luxuries with European car proportions. I love the driving dynamics of the 77-79 Cads but in my heart I still love the big monster 75 and 76 Cads, Buicks Electras, and Olds 98's - those too are nice driving but no where near as every day driveable as the 77-79 Cads. My world of Cadillac pretty much ended in 1979 since that seemed to be the end of the era of the Cadillac mystique. :)

Dave

creeker
09-10-10, 06:36 PM
68265

Here are some interior pictures from both cars. The Cad is Colonial Yellow with matching vinyl top, and a Burnished Gold d'Elegance cloth interior. The Roadmaster is dark blue outside and dark blue cloth inside.

Chad, it was nice to see you again after five years, glad you liked the cars. They are neat old boats and I feel so lucky to have such nifty machines to enjoy. :)

To me, this 79 Cad is the most driveable old car ever. I never get tired of looking at it or driving it, it doesn't break, plus it's always a hit when pulling up to a sidewalk cafe, valet parking at a hot spot, or going to the beach. Everyone loves it! :) The yellow color always gets comments and the increasingly unique body style always gets admiring glances and friendly comments. It's a personal parade float of self enriching luxury and extroverted automotive goodwill. I love it! :)

Thanks Chad for your thoughtful and impressive review of these old cars and hope to see you again soon. I will have the Roadmaster ready for Brandon. :)

Dave



They carried on with the same interior into 1980, my 80 cdv. interior is identical
to the one shown here.

Bro-Ham
09-10-10, 06:46 PM
They carried on with the same interior into 1980, my 80 cdv. interior is identical
to the one shown here.

You're right, the deVille d'Elegance interior seating style was unchanged from 1979 through 1984 in the rear drive models. The only difference is the upholstery color changes through those years, and, an obscure detail, the door panels were different in 1982 (I can't remember for sure but it could have been 1981 as well) with the standard deVille door panel with the d'Elegance fabric as the insert and also on the door pull strap. In 1983 deVille d'Elegance the swinging door pull handles and exact door panel style from 1979/80 came back for 1983 and 1984.

I love deVille d'Elegance - unique and rare when new and more-so now. :)

orconn
09-10-10, 07:52 PM
The 1976-79 Cadillac Seville was Cadillacs recognition of the fact that they were loosing to many customers to Mercedes, Jaguar (particularly Mercedes) Americans on both coasts were being these brands (BMW and the Japanese hadn't attracted "luxury car" buyers as yet). I bought and owned a '72 XJ6 Jaguar and many of my friends had bought Mercedes 280SE and in the mid seventies 450 sedans and SLs. The young high earning consumers were demanding a higher level of handling, fit and finish, materials and assembly quality in their luxury cars and until the 76 Seville and sebsequent 77 new De Villes and Fleetwoods had nothing that was equal to what Europe was offering.

In the 1980's, while I kept my '76 Seville for my own use I leased Jaguar XJs for my business cars (I have never been able to warm up to Mercedes .... or maybe it was vice verse!) and I on through the 1990's I owned nothing but European cars (with the exception of a '85 Thunderbird Turbo coupe that I inherited). The only American car to bring me back to the domestics was the 1992-97 Seville STS and recently the 2002 SLS of my wife.

While I had a 1962 Cadillac convertible which I got after my first car, my Jaguar XK150 drophead was totalled, I was never drawn to the American behmoths of the of the sixties and first half of the seventies. My family and aunts and uncles all had either Olds Toronados or Cadillac Eldorados with a few regular Cadillacs, senior Buicks and Olds thrown in ((I come from a large family which was divided betwen both coats and the upper Mid West( the mid westerners had the Buicks and Olds) )). I was overseas for the last half of the sixties and until 1972 when I returned permanently to California.

All three American "luxury" lost considerable ground to Foreign car makers when they produced over rought, garrish mobiles of dubious reliability. By the end of the eighties even my parents friends had all switch to foreign cars. And while I am sure they missed some of the strong points of American cars, they just could no longer tolerate the poor quality of Detroit cars. This trend has continued until today.

So Bro-ham I would have to agree that the late seventies Sevilles, De Villes and Fleetwoods were tyhe last of the Cadillacs to hold even a glimmer of their reputation as a leading luxury car company.

AS an aside, I remember reading an interview with the top Italian cars designer back in the seventies, Giugiaro, et. al. and their saying that the late seventies Cadillac Fleetwoods were amazing and certainly were the best luxury car value in the world!!!

gdwriter
09-10-10, 08:55 PM
This sure sounds like a bunch of drivel - - five years ago when we first met on this forum you couldn't shut up about your 79 Cad and the love affair you were having with it.:owned2:

Rick's taste in cars has changed. His tendency to prattle on about them endlessly has not.

gdwriter
09-10-10, 09:10 PM
So Bro-ham I would have to agree that the late seventies Sevilles, De Villes and Fleetwoods were tyhe last of the Cadillacs to hold even a glimmer of their reputation as a leading luxury car company.I prefer to forget the 80s ever happened as far as Cadillac is concerned. I'm just glad they got their shit together with the 4th- and 5th-generation Seville and now the CTS. I still have a soft spot for the big, cushy, flashy Cadillacs, and for a classic you can readily enjoy on modern roads, the '75-'79 Seville and '77-'79 DeVille and Fleetwood are the ones to have. If I had the room and money, I'd love to have one. In some ways, I wish I had bought the '78 Sedan de Ville d'Elegance I drove last year. I think it was <$1,000.

http://www.gdwriter.com/P2280001.jpg

http://www.gdwriter.com/P2280025.jpg

http://www.gdwriter.com/P2280011.jpg

It even had the turbine vanes I like so much:

http://www.gdwriter.com/P2280002.jpg

hueterm
09-10-10, 11:15 PM
68265

Here are some interior pictures from both cars. The Cad is Colonial Yellow with matching vinyl top, and a Burnished Gold d'Elegance cloth interior. The Roadmaster is dark blue outside and dark blue cloth inside.

Chad, it was nice to see you again after five years, glad you liked the cars. They are neat old boats and I feel so lucky to have such nifty machines to enjoy. :)

To me, this 79 Cad is the most driveable old car ever. I never get tired of looking at it or driving it, it doesn't break, plus it's always a hit when pulling up to a sidewalk cafe, valet parking at a hot spot, or going to the beach. Everyone loves it! :) The yellow color always gets comments and the increasingly unique body style always gets admiring glances and friendly comments. It's a personal parade float of self enriching luxury and extroverted automotive goodwill. I love it! :)

Thanks Chad for your thoughtful and impressive review of these old cars and hope to see you again soon. I will have the Roadmaster ready for Brandon. :)

Dave


Can the Deville fabric be matched if it were to need to be reupholstered? It's a pretty unique pattern...you'd be screwed otherwise...

hueterm
09-10-10, 11:17 PM
Gary, you are a fool if you didn't buy that for under a grand...especially since you were going to get rid of Cruella -- it was even blue! How many miles did it have? it looks like it was in really good shape..... I love those wheel covers too -- much better than wires...

gdwriter
09-10-10, 11:27 PM
Gary, you are a fool if you didn't buy that for under a grand...especially since you were going to get rid of Cruella -- it was even blue! How many miles did it have? it looks like it was in really good shape..... I love those wheel covers too -- much better than wires...Not blue; dark green. Looks like it had 105,000. Overall, it was in good shape for a 30+ year old car, especially the interior. But I had just bought Sabrina, so I didn't need four cars clogging my driveway; I was playing valet enough already. It also definitely needed a repaint (it was an Arizona car, so the paint was pretty well baked). Since I need to do some paint and body work on Betty, plus replace the carpet and seat foam, there just wouldn't be enough money to spread around restoring both cars. But I have some regrets that I didn't buy it anyway.

hueterm
09-10-10, 11:30 PM
No, I can understand the vehicle roulette. I guess you just did give Cruella away, I was thinking it was longer ago.

You need a car project to last you until you're 50 -- you'll have Betty done in a couple of years.... :-)

orconn
09-10-10, 11:40 PM
Auto roulette ... its' why my collections have always stopped at five cars. If you don't drive them regularlythey become problems requiring too much time.

hueterm
09-10-10, 11:43 PM
Mine would be easier to manage if the Concours and the ETC mysteriously disappeared and an '03 STS appeared in their place....

orconn
09-10-10, 11:53 PM
Mine would be easier to manage if the Concours and the ETC mysteriously disappeared and an '03 STS appeared in their place....

Now you are talking! Does Walmart have a reliable "wish taking" Santa?

Night Wolf
09-10-10, 11:56 PM
:stirpot:

They don't come in manuals, nor with convertible or zip-off roofs...

Now THERE'S a project....

Shame yours was wrecked -- what happened to it? At least you got some good pics and was able to make it to a meet w/it.

Convertible? Yes, in a classic cruiser, I would like a convertible to fully enjoy it - which is why my personally classic Cadillac of choice would be a '68 DeVille convertible or a '72 Eldorado convertible and as much as I enjoy manual transmissions and the art of driving, an automatic is more fitting in these old luxobarges that are anything buy a driving machine.


I would have happily taken that '79 off your hands had it not been wrecked.

At the time it seemed like I couldn't get rid of it. Not that I actively tried to sell it, but I would monitor various places to sell cars and they were not bringing in much money at all. I do however still have the title for the car and I removed the VIN plate from the dash as well.....


This sure sounds like a bunch of drivel - - five years ago when we first met on this forum you couldn't shut up about your 79 Cad and the love affair you were having with it.

I never really had a "bond" with the '79. Sure, I liked it, it was a good and reliable car and I had fun times in it.

But during the time I owned it I was constantly unsure of what to actually do with it. While it was in some ways a classic, to me it wasn't. Which is why I often though about trying to find an early-mid 70's DeVille or Eldorado. I was also often thrown by the styling. I liked the front end, but the sides left something to be desired - most of it being that the lower portion of the car looks too plain. The 80's Broughams really dressed this up with the chrome trim. The Fleetwood (not DeVille) had some, but still not enough. In the side pictures of my car the entire rear quarter panel just looks too plain.

To me, it drove and rode no different then the 80's Broughams - because it is pretty much the same car. At this point the ride/handling on two given cars would be determined by the condition of the suspension, and the type of parts used. With that said, the ride/handling can be changed to ones particular liking by changing parts - stiffer or softer shocks etc...

While the 307 Broughams has their mess of vaccum lines, AIR pump and other quirky things, IMO it was a better cruiser then the 425 DeVilles. When properly tuned, a 307 should return a good bit better gas mileage, and all things considered - comparing a 5.0 engine to a 7.0 - it isn't THAT big of a difference power-wise. Both are quite a reliable engine.

I remember being rather disapointed with my freshly tuned up 425. It wasn't until I put the modified '68 472 intake manifold on along with a 1" carb spacer and rebuilt carb that it woke up a bit and actually felt "peppy".

For me, it would come down to personal preferences in styling. If you just like the styling of a '77-'79 then go for it. Otherwise I see no other reason to go with the older ones, possibly paying more money and having a slimer selection of cars. You can still find late 80's Broughams in good condition fairly cheap.

I really like the '77-'92 body style over all, to me it is "Cadillac" as it is what I grew up with/around. I personally preferred the later 80's styling over the later 70's.... but now that I don't think having a carburator is a cool thing anymore, I am very much inclined to go with a '90-'92, plus the styling changes really grew on me - the only thing that I still don't like are the single large compostie headlights, which I would find a way to convert back to the quad sealed beam designs, as that is my only gripe about the car as a whole. I think the different interior with digital dash would be a cool change as well.

Growing up my father had a '79 Coupe DeVille, (parents were divorced) My mother bough an '84 Sedan DeVille which she only had for 4 months and was involved in a life-changing car accident. That car was replaced with an '89 Brougham which she had for a long time. That was the car I learned to drive on and took my road test in. It was given to me when they replaced their car and needed too much work at the time of me just buying my house. It spent 1 night at my house before I sold it to Ben in TN - about the only person that showed an extreme interest in it and was actually willing to care after it and fix it up. My (now) step-father had an '87 Brougham. Then of course my '79 pictured here. I've just always been around them, even a few weeks back I went for a ride in a co-workers '86 Brougham, kinda beat but overall not bad.... it still brought back lots of memories as a kid. I dunno if that is a good or bad thing though - do I want to stay in the past?

hueterm
09-11-10, 12:00 AM
Now you are talking! Does Walmart have a reliable "wish taking" Santa?


Hello...probably one that had been in the big house for grand theft auto....that would be real convenient....

Bro-Ham
09-11-10, 12:29 AM
night, I don't think you know what you like or how you like it - - I'm almost wondering if you even know who you are. Make up your mind. It now seems apparent that you were blowing quite a bit of smoke several years ago when you had that 79 Cad because in your previous long winded oracles you weren't shy about bragging it up like it was the most precious of prime royal jewels. I can only read about 6 or 8 words of every paragraph you write without rolling my eyes, but I assume at some point you'll make a full circle and come back to one of your previous viewpoints. I don't know, but please join the bandwagon since this thread isn't about your former car anyway. :)

Bro-Ham
09-11-10, 12:36 AM
gd, I can't believe you took a pass on that green machine! :) What a car! And for a grand?!?! And a d'Elegance to boot?! :) I'd drive that car in a minute!! :)

Night Wolf
09-11-10, 12:51 AM
:owned2:

Rick's taste in cars has changed. His tendency to prattle on about them endlessly has not.

Since you ask :) I actually was always in question as to the '79, in fact I remember making a thread about it comparing to an '89.

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/rwd-19xx-1984-deville-fleetwood-1985/56209-1979-vs-1989-a.html

*Chad - in post 13 it seems like you preferred the '89 over '79 overall ;)

All evening at work I was thinking about this thread and the whole "classic" car thing, and wondering why I haven't thought about it lately, and even now when I am thinking about it.... I don't feel the desire to go out and own one.

To me.

To me. (just want to throw that out there) A classic "cruiser" car, regardless of brand/year etc... represents one thing mainly - fun.

That is, a car that you enjoy driving, but for whatever reason don't want to or cant drive everyday. Something that at the end of the work-week you can get in and just enjoy driving, or perhaps something durring the week to take out for an evening cruise and go out to dinner with etc...

That is one of the reasons why my '79 didn't offer the "classic" feel to me. It behaved very much like the late 80s Broughams, which 6 years ago I didn't consider "classics". But also to go out for a drive in, I personally preferred my '93 Coupe DeVille. I really liked that car, it had better driving dynamics, got better gas mileage and I built up a really nice sound system in it - part of going out for a cruise (to me) is listening to music.

For those that resort to driving a boring car, pickup truck, minivan etc... all week, that classic may be something that one really looks forward to driving. If someone has a family or needs a certain vehicle for work, this is a greater possibility as the daily driven vehicle may be on the more practical side instead of the fun side.

Since I started driving, I always enjoyed having the windows down and A/C off. Not being confined in my car. I enjoyed the wind, arm out the window etc... So it was no surprise that when I got my first convertible - I was hooked. Nearly anytime I would go for a cruise in one of my cars in the past - the windows would be down. I now look for - above all - in a cruiser car, a convertible. It is like having the windows down, but so much better.

It started with the first BMW - I started to realize that I really enjoyed going for a laid-back cruise in this car. In essance it was my "classic" car. It is a very "fun" car that I look forward to driving. Then I got the Jeep, and the same thing happened. Just today after reading this post then driving to work, and back home, I was in the topless and doorless Jeep. The whole time I was thinking about the classic car thing and how I figured out the reason why I haven't been seeking one - I am getting that same feeling and enjoyment from my daily driven vehicles. I no longer have to wait until the weekend or a special night I decide to drive my "classic" car - everytime I drive somewhere - anywhere, I am driving that "classic".

Which then got me thinking - why do we seek classic cars as a personal vehicle?

The main reason I could come up with is because of childhood memories. Either a car one grew up with, spent time around, or really wanted. This would be the main reason which is no doubt what caused the muscle car boom with the now middle aged folks.

For some, they are attracted to a certain style that just isn't around anymore. I would say a lot of Cadillacs and Lincolns fall under this category. For others, certain cars represent something to the automotive world - a big change, the BMW 2002 comes to mind. Someone may also buy a classic to represent "what once was" such as a huge 70s luxobarge because it represents "what a real American luxury car is about" <--- that used to be me.

But on to that last point - I wasn't even alive when that car was made. I have no idea first hand of what the times were like, what the car ment or anything else relating to it. It is just what I would come up with in my mind looking back to times before I was born. I see many now middle aged folks (my parents age) interested in cars from the 60s and 70s - cars they grew up around.... I don't see many in that age bracket interested in cars from the 40s and 50s (from a stock standpoint), and at the car shows, those owners are typically even older. In fact it has been my experience that most middle-aged folks don't even care about 40s and 50s cars, but go gaga over 60s muscle cars.

It's what they grew up around, which is why it seems... I dunno.... sorta akward to be so interested in 60s and 70s cars to me. From a "cool car" either from styling or technology stand point, its one thing, but from a "looking back" point it's another. When I was at my fathers place where various older cars are parked, I didn't feel anything from them other then "old car" I could respect them from a machine standpoint, but I just didn't get much from it.

Which is why I feel the muscle car bubble will burst and all the 60s muscle cars will loose value once the current generation that collecting them moves on. To my generation they don't mean nearly as much. I remember people saying 80s cars will never be sought after and it was a dark time for the automotive world - maybe so, but now we are starting to hear about 80s cars being picked up, fixed up and cared after and slowly as they age and the population is weeded out, they are becoming the next "classics"

For me, my "classics" are my old BMW convertible and the Jeep. They offer the exact feel and driving enjoyment that I would seek from a "classic" - the added bonus is that I get to enjoy that each and every time I drive - any place and any time.

Bro-Ham
09-11-10, 12:57 AM
Orr, The Euro imports were interesting in an era when domestic luxury cars went from sleek and fast cruisers to cars that tried to do too many things and were still clinging to an ideology that was quickly losing its tempo. Once the Euro cars got the luxury aspect in line with the quality and performance characteristics then the U.S. automakers couldn't keep up, and it's too bad, since they were such leaders and innovators when the emphasis was on pleasing the customer and not pleasing the government with its smothering regulations. Live and learn, hopefully there will be a renaissance. :)

Night Wolf
09-11-10, 01:13 AM
night, I don't think you know what you like or how you like it - - I'm almost wondering if you even know who you are. Make up your mind. It now seems apparent that you were blowing quite a bit of smoke several years ago when you had that 79 Cad because in your previous long winded oracles you weren't shy about bragging it up like it was the most precious of prime royal jewels. I can only read about 6 or 8 words of every paragraph you write without rolling my eyes, but I assume at some point you'll make a full circle and come back to one of your previous viewpoints. I don't know, but please join the bandwagon since this thread isn't about your former car anyway. :)

You may very well be correct. I am finding out who I am every day - it is rather interesting too.

In fact I am currently reading a book titled "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenace" and simply put, I can not believe how well I can relate to it and how much it interests me.

Growing up, just like many people - the were around their parents, did what they did, like what they liked etc... Both sides of my family were huge GM fans, my father being the most interested in cars and being a big Pontiac fan. No one in my close family had an import, so they were the "unknown". As such, I was not exposed to imports and only heard good about the American cars.

It started with the Isuzu, then the BMW that, slowly, I was pulled away from that circle of comfort and experienced what was thought to be the big black unknown for so long. The same person that you say once wasn't "shy about bragging it up like it was the most precious of prime royal jewels" also knocked imports and all things associated with them - 4cyl, timing belts, high revving engines etc... In fact I used to get into car debates against BMW saying how much better a large torque heavy V8 was.

I was foolish for doing so without ever even experiencing the very thing I was knocking. I don't give a crap if others don't like my vehicles, or don't like the vehicles they are talking bad about in general. But atleast experience them, because to do so otherwise is just cutting yourself short. If you experience the vehicle and then form a conclusion as to why you do or don't like it - then that is good. I say this because I was "that" person. I cut out an entire selection of vehicles - basically ALL "imports" for a while because of the way I grew up. When I allowed myself to be introduced to them, I couldn't believe what a surprise it was.

I think another big difference that seperates say, you and I (Bro-Ham) is our age. I joined the forums in early March 2003 - I was 15 and didn't even have a drivers license. When I owned the '79 I was 16-18yrs old. Between that age, and my current age - 23 people undergo drastic changes. They become their own self, learn new things and are exposed to new things. It is no wonder why in, say 5 years that so much is different. I am sure if there were internet forums that you posted on in that age period that one could look back and see differences in the way you thought and things you liked.

For me - to think and feel exactly the same way as I did at 17 - about all things, including cars, would be like being stuck in time. I meet people like that, older guys at work with the "this is how it always was, this is how it always will be" mentality. I don't want to be that person.

Bro-Ham
09-11-10, 01:15 AM
I don't think anybody cares but you. Please stop polluting this thread with the all about you show. Turn over a new leaf - it's not too late. :)

Night Wolf
09-11-10, 01:19 AM
gd, I can't believe you took a pass on that green machine! :) What a car! And for a grand?!?! And a d'Elegance to boot?! :) I'd drive that car in a minute!! :)

For the most part, other then our little circle of Cadillac-enthusiasts, something like that particular Cadillac is really nothing more then a "worn out old car" to the general population. While some here may think $1,000 was a steal, there are plenty others that would gladly walk away from it. That was the problem I had with my '79 and why I almost felt "stuck" with it, because even in good condition - it wouldn't bring much money at all and for the little bit it would bring I just felt as though it wasn't worth selling it.

No worries that I am picking on Cadillac though. This happens to pretty much all old cars. For the most part - the general population sees non-fixed up e30's as "old small cars" that don't mean much. To the e30 world they mean something different but not to the masses. As such, for better or worse - prices reflect that. Unless it is something that is generally sought after, like a Corvette - prices will not really go that high. Which is why pretty much any muscle car brings a much higher price then a similar year Cadillac or Lincoln. To the majority of the people buying muscle cars - they mean something to them while a Cadillac or Lincoln dosen't

Bro-Ham
09-11-10, 01:22 AM
In other news, I saw Chad again this evening. Also, Brandon was along with his Town Car, which, after drinks, I wasn't smart enough to take a look at, but will see it Sunday hopefully when we rendezvous for more cars and cocktails. Also met their friend AJ who has a 91 Brougham. All three of these guys are complete characters. :) Another fun filled cocktail hour with non stop talking about the big cars we all love and all the miniscule details that only car people could ever care to talk about. :)

Night Wolf
09-11-10, 01:26 AM
I don't think anybody cares but you. Please stop polluting this thread with the all about you show. Turn over a new leaf - it's not too late. :)

You realize it was others, such as yourself that did the initial instigating, right? :rolleyes: Me being a stubborn Italian just follows along... :bouncy:

gdwriter
09-11-10, 01:27 AM
gd, I can't believe you took a pass on that green machine! :) What a car! And for a grand?!?! And a d'Elegance to boot?! :) I'd drive that car in a minute!! :)Yeah, this thread has me kicking myself. I can only hope that the car went to someone who appreciates it for what it is and has given it a good home.

Bro-Ham
09-11-10, 01:29 AM
nw, I think you like to impress yourself, I am not particularly interested in why. :)

Bro-Ham
09-11-10, 01:33 AM
Yeah, this thread has me kicking myself. I can only hope that the car went to someone who appreciates it for what it is and has given it a good home.

Don't beat yourself up over it. There are plenty of others. The time may be right at some point, or not right, and that's the beauty of life. Sometimes you just have to make it happen. :)

gdwriter
09-11-10, 01:34 AM
In other news, I saw Chad again this evening. Also, Brandon was along with his Town Car, which, after drinks, I wasn't smart enough to take a look at, but will see it Sunday hopefully when we rendezvous for more cars and cocktails. Also met their friend AJ who has a 91 Brougham. All three of these guys are complete characters. :) Another fun filled cocktail hour with non stop talking about the big cars we all love and all the miniscule details that only car people could ever care to talk about. :)OK, when you guys get together on Sunday, do it before it gets dark and take some freakin' pictures, will you? There are late 70s DeVille enthusiasts (i.e., not Rick) who want to see more.

Night Wolf
09-11-10, 01:35 AM
Yeah, this thread has me kicking myself. I can only hope that the car went to someone who appreciates it for what it is and has given it a good home.

With production being so high in the states (compared to imports of the 70s and 80s) and prices so low, it wouldn't be that hard to find another - and one that dosen't need a paint job, as that can quickly add thousands. A quick browse on ebay brings up these two cars, which after spending $1k on a car plus a quality paint job isn't *that* much of a difference.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1977-Cadillac-DeVille-dElegance-/250692316786?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item3a5e6d2e72

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Cadillac-Coupe-DeVille-/110582639779?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item19bf3d2ca3

If you were to actively look around and wait for a good deal, I'm sure you'd find just what you are looking for - at a decent price. The good thing about being interested in these things is that they are not universaly sought after yet, and the prices still reflect that.

Bro-Ham
09-11-10, 01:36 AM
gd, it's all part of the fun. :) Chad was on the midnight express when he and his pals rolled in the other night. I thought his picture of the old 79 Cad in the dark was classic! :)

Night Wolf
09-11-10, 01:38 AM
nw, I think you like to impress yourself, I am not particularly interested in why. :)

I do that when I look in the mirror - just before a shower, not on the forums :dance:

gdwriter
09-11-10, 01:49 AM
I see many now middle aged folks (my parents age) interested in cars from the 60s and 70s - cars they grew up around.... I don't see many in that age bracket interested in cars from the 40s and 50s (from a stock standpoint), and at the car shows, those owners are typically even older. In fact it has been my experience that most middle-aged folks don't even care about 40s and 50s cars, but go gaga over 60s muscle cars.

It's what they grew up around, which is why it seems... I dunno.... sorta akward to be so interested in 60s and 70s cars to me. From a "cool car" either from styling or technology stand point, its one thing, but from a "looking back" point it's another. When I was at my fathers place where various older cars are parked, I didn't feel anything from them other then "old car" I could respect them from a machine standpoint, but I just didn't get much from it.

Which is why I feel the muscle car bubble will burst and all the 60s muscle cars will loose value once the current generation that collecting them moves on. To my generation they don't mean nearly as much.Are you kidding? Have you been to very many classic car shows? Sure, there are many people who grew up with the classic cars of the 60s and 70s, but there are also a lot of people who own cars built way before they were born. And you know why? Because a '67 Tri-Power GTO is freakin' cool whether you were born in 1950 or 1990.

There's a small, 6,000-student liberal arts college in the town next to mine whose Business Club usually hosts a classic car show every spring. Sure, there are people my age with our classic cars, but a lot of these kids in their late teens and early 20s show off their 60s and 70s cars, too. I met this great kid who was president of the club who had a sweet '69 Camaro he always showed, and his Dad would come down with his C5 Corvette.

I'll readily admit I'm extremely attached to my '64 Impala because when I bought it 11 years ago, I got back a huge part of my past. But my 20 and 19-year-old nieces love Betty, and not just because of family history. They love her because she's a cool car. And as the saying goes, they don't make 'em like they used to. Were I to get run over by a bus tomorrow, Betty would go to my sister, who also learned to drive in my family's '64 Impala. But I'm not sure which niece would get her if I live to a ripe old age.

Finally, there's another reason why 60s and 70s cars remain popular and accessible classics, even with people who are much younger than the cars themselves (my sister, born in 1973, owns a '69 Firebird, for instance). These cars are able to handle modern driving conditions in a way that cars from the 40s or older can't. So they can be easily enjoyed. And for cars that have a significant following, restoration parts are readily available. It's much easier to restore a '69 Firebird than and '85. And I've had virtually no trouble finding parts for my Impala that would be virtually impossible to find on a 30s or 40s Chevrolet.

Night Wolf
09-11-10, 02:28 AM
Are you kidding? Have you been to very many classic car shows? Sure, there are many people who grew up with the classic cars of the 60s and 70s, but there are also a lot of people who own cars built way before they were born. And you know why? Because a '67 Tri-Power GTO is freakin' cool whether you were born in 1950 or 1990.

There's a small, 6,000-student liberal arts college in the town next to mine whose Business Club usually hosts a classic car show every spring. Sure, there are people my age with our classic cars, but a lot of these kids in their late teens and early 20s show off their 60s and 70s cars, too. I met this great kid who was president of the club who had a sweet '69 Camaro he always showed, and his Dad would come down with his C5 Corvette.

I'll readily admit I'm extremely attached to my '64 Impala because when I bought it 11 years ago, I got back a huge part of my past. But my 20 and 19-year-old nieces love Betty, and not just because of family history. They love her because she's a cool car. And as the saying goes, they don't make 'em like they used to. Were I to get run over by a bus tomorrow, Betty would go to my sister, who also learned to drive in my family's '64 Impala. But I'm not sure which niece would get her if I live to a ripe old age.

Finally, there's another reason why 60s and 70s cars remain popular and accessible classics, even with people who are much younger than the cars themselves (my sister, born in 1973, owns a '69 Firebird, for instance). These cars are able to handle modern driving conditions in a way that cars from the 40s or older can't. So they can be easily enjoyed. And for cars that have a significant following, restoration parts are readily available. It's much easier to restore a '69 Firebird than and '85. And I've had virtually no trouble finding parts for my Impala that would be virtually impossible to find on a 30s or 40s Chevrolet.

I was speaking in general terms - not definitely. No doubt people of all ages enjoy such cars. Car shows attract those types of people, be it they own the car or admire them.

From my personal experience, on a day to day routine of interacting with people it is the older folks that own 60s and 70s era muscle cars while the younger folks own more modern cars.

I'm not quite understanding your reply though, I state the reasons you mentioned as exceptions in my post.

The example of your sister and her Firebird is different, she is only 4 years older then the car. I can see myself being interesed in an '83 model car just as easily as I am interested in my '90 model - heck the e30 came out before I was born. Yet the same '69 Firebird is different for my generation - that would be like your sister being interested in a 1955 Pontiac Star Chief.

Which goes back to what I first said, with few exceptions due to sentimental value etc... the main (not only) reasons why someone from my generation would be interested in a '69 model car would be from a styling point of view, or as a base for modifying a vehicle for a particular race event/show car. The example of your neices and Betty, with the exception of the family history, it would most likely come back to styling or being unique (which is part of styling). Some things that wouldn't be related to styling but instead "not made how they used to" would be massive door hinges, carburators and drum brakes.... non of which have a large draw on people in general, much less younger folks from my generation. Liking the large car size, plush seats and trunk large enough for 4 - would be under styling. It would be interesting to hear the exact reasons why your neices like Betty, and if they would be interested in seeking out a similar car for themselves, what their reasons would be.

Sure there are driving dynamics and such - but most 60s and 70s cars have horrible driving dynamics. Some may seek that particular feeling though - and that is fine. That could even be a reason other then styling to seek a certain car. If you want a Cadillac with pinky tip steering that'll float over speed bumps - chances are you won't find it in the last 20yrs of Cadillac models. But I'd say for every one person that seeks an old Cadillac because of it's driving dynamics there are dozens more that seek it for its styling, one way or another.

I'm not saying seeking a car for styling is wrong, it just seems like there was a misunderstanding from the quoted post. In other words, you have already expressed how you feel towards me in general - that I praise all my things while knocking all others, and it is rather easy to sense that in your rather defensive replies to many things I write. Such isn't the case though.

I personally like the 1972 Eldorado, especially in convertible form. What it comes down to is that I like the way it looks inside and out. Newer Cadillac's go better, stop better, handle better, use less gas etc... but ultimately the reason why I would choose a 1972 Eldorado over a 1983 Eldordo would be styling. Then there is the fact that the only convertible Cadillac made since was the Allante. Sure engines and options come into play, but again - most people of my generation do not seek out cars from 1 or 2 generations prior due to their superior engine designs or flood of techno toys.

Which ties in with the quoted post - people of my generation seek such cars for different reasons then people of your generation. The muscle car boom was caused by people people able to afford the cars they either once had or wanted when they were younger. Not saying there aren't people in my generation that are interested in them, but that number is much less then the current population interested in them - the muscle car era bubble will burst within time.

Stingroo
09-11-10, 02:35 AM
I disagree with your last sentence.

That's all I'll say on the subject. :lol:

Night Wolf
09-11-10, 02:47 AM
I disagree with your last sentence.

That's all I'll say on the subject. :lol:

So in another, say, 30-years when most of the current middle-aged population is no longer driving cars anymore, and our generation is the new middle-aged generation..... do you really feel that 60s and 70s era muscle cars will continue to bring a premium in price and be as sought after as they are now?

Personally I don't. Instead I see 80s and 90s era cars becoming the new "classics" as our generations gets older and seeks the vehicles they either grew up with, once had or always wanted. We already see this starting with the older part of our generation. The 80s were said to be a dark period in automotive times and cars wouldn't be memorable. Yet not only is it the Grand Nationals - cars that would be universally sought after... but regular G-bodies are starting to become collectable. Same goes for many others as well.

Stingroo
09-11-10, 03:06 AM
Regular G-bodies are being molested and trashed, it's upsetting.

And I want one to modify the living hell out of it too, but from a performance standpoint, not to make one of those "donk" monstrosities. The GN is praised for its performance and rarity, and that'll continue to appreciate.

And yes, I really do believe the 60's and 70's cars will ALWAYS have a high premium attached to them. They're from the height of American car culture as a whole, not just for one generation.

gdwriter
09-11-10, 03:32 AM
Some things that wouldn't be related to styling but instead "not made how they used to" would be massive door hinges, carburators and drum brakes.... non of which have a large draw on people in general, much less younger folks from my generation. Liking the large car size, plush seats and trunk large enough for 4 - would be under styling. It would be interesting to hear the exact reasons why your neices like Betty, and if they would be interested in seeking out a similar car for themselves, what their reasons would be.

Sure there are driving dynamics and such - but most 60s and 70s cars have horrible driving dynamics. Some may seek that particular feeling though - and that is fine. That could even be a reason other then styling to seek a certain car.I have four exceptional friends that I've adopted as brothers. But only one of them is a car guy. He is close to your age, just about to turn 29, and when I first met him, he had a '94 BMW 3-Series (he now drives an '04 Audi A4). Several years ago, we took a road trip to Pendleton, OR in Betty, which is about a 500-mile round trip, and he drove a good deal of the return trip, including going over the roller coaster road near my house I love so much. As he whipped through a tight hairpin turn, he said, "I can't believe how this car handles!" Granted, I had installed a rear stabilizer bar like you had in your '79 DeVille, and that makes a huge difference. But the front suspension and power steering are stock, and they're a lot better than you'd expect.

So if you don't have actual experience with vintage cars, kindly refrain from making blanket, uniformed statements. As a freelance classic car inspector, I've test driven a number of vintage cars, so I have a frame of reference to work from. I've inspected several late 60s Chargers, for instance, and they have Novocaine power steering where you can't feel a damn thing. But the '69 Oldsmobile Cutlass W-30 I inspected last fall was a ball to drive. No power steering, but it was direct and geared for good response; when I made a tight U-turn, the return to center was very quick. I inspected a '69 Firebird the same color as my sister's, and it was a pleasure to drive. And when I was storing my sister's Firebird during her move to Alabama this summer, I took it over my favorite back roads. The car has a hesitating carburetor and needs brake work, but the cornering was flat, and the steering was responsive. Plus, it looks and sounds totally bad ass. Last summer, when friends from work needed a classic muscle car for a short film they were doing, I was able to use the Firebird, and when I drove up in it, everybody working in the movie — from people who were around when the car was new to kids just out of high school — were drawn to it like a magnet, oo-ing and ah-ing:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx12u10Hyww


www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj8shn-CqJQ

As for my niece's taste in cars, the one I gave Cruella to was telling me about all the classic cars in her small town's 4th of July parade, how cool they were, and how she'd like to have one some day. But I come from a car family.


In other words, you have already expressed how you feel towards me in general - that I praise all my things while knocking all others, and it is rather easy to sense that in your rather defensive replies to many things I write.Defensive? Ha! :jerkit:

Jesda
09-11-10, 05:54 AM
The handful of awesome cars from the 80s are already really expensive, like the GNX, Countach, etc. The market is already there.

Cars from the 60s had more bravado, and people are willing to pay a lot for it. They're permanent icons of our culture, like American Gothic.

drewsdeville
09-11-10, 09:49 AM
I have four exceptional friends that I've adopted as brothers. But only one of them is a car guy. He is close to your age, just about to turn 29, and when I first met him, he had a '94 BMW 3-Series (he now drives an '04 Audi A4). Several years ago, we took a road trip to Pendleton, OR in Betty, which is about a 500-mile round trip, and he drove a good deal of the return trip, including going over the roller coaster road near my house I love so much. As he whipped through a tight hairpin turn, he said, "I can't believe how this car handles!" Granted, I had installed a rear stabilizer bar like you had in your '79 DeVille, and that makes a huge difference. But the front suspension and power steering are stock, and they're a lot better than you'd expect.

So if you don't have actual experience with vintage cars, kindly refrain from making blanket, uniformed statements. As a freelance classic car inspector, I've test driven a number of vintage cars, so I have a frame of reference to work from. I've inspected several late 60s Chargers, for instance, and they have Novocaine power steering where you can't feel a damn thing. But the '69 Oldsmobile Cutlass W-30 I inspected last fall was a ball to drive. No power steering, but it was direct and geared for good response; when I made a tight U-turn, the return to center was very quick. I inspected a '69 Firebird the same color as my sister's, and it was a pleasure to drive. And when I was storing my sister's Firebird during her move to Alabama this summer, I took it over my favorite back roads. The car has a hesitating carburetor and needs brake work, but the cornering was flat, and the steering was responsive. Plus, it looks and sounds totally bad ass. Last summer, when friends from work needed a classic muscle car for a short film they were doing, I was able to use the Firebird, and when I drove up in it, everybody working in the movie — from people who were around when the car was new to kids just out of high school — were drawn to it like a magnet, oo-ing and ah-ing:


As for my niece's taste in cars, the one I gave Cruella to was telling me about all the classic cars in her small town's 4th of July parade, how cool they were, and how she'd like to have one some day. But I come from a car family.

Defensive? Ha! :jerkit:

Not to fuel the fire here...but I don't like this post.

Lets get the easy one out of the way. As a "freelance inspector", I'd expect you to know that the W-30 was an option on top of the 442, not the Cutlass, which were seperate models at the time...meaning there's no such thing as a 1969 Cutlass W-30. Minor technicality, but again, if you are the caliber you portray yourself to be, I wouldn't expect this sort of error. After all, how can you inspect something when you don't even know what you are looking at? Was this just a Cutlass with an aftermarket W-30 hood?

Now, onto the driving dynamics. Rick states that most '60's and '70's cars don't have very good dynamics, which I can agree to. What do YOU consider excellent driving dynamics to be? All you list is some examples of how the power steering (or lack of) feels and what it's like making a u-turn in a Firebird with hesitation and bad brakes. Driving dynamics go far beyond what you can do in a u-turn and a back road, go far beyond simple feel of the wheel, and you certainly can't comment on overall dynamics when the car hesitates and has bad brakes.

And you know, it's ok. With the your general taste that you portray in the lounge, old Deville, your current Seville, and the Impala, it's clear you are a "cruiser" type of guy and performance driving isn't exactly a common experience. And I respect that, that's fine. But when you are trying to come from that type of background arguing driving dynamics that I'm certain you don't fully understand, it's not cool.

On the other hand, I think the current classics are here to stay and be enjoyed by ALL generations. Maybe not because of their characteristics, but just because they are pieces of automotive history. Any auto enthusiast can at least respect and admire them old boats because of what they represent/symbolize.

hueterm
09-11-10, 10:51 AM
I do that when I look in the mirror - just before a shower, not on the forums :dance:


Oy... T - M - I ! :canttalk:

Bro-Ham
09-11-10, 11:08 AM
Ahhhh - the futility of trying to predict the future of our world of cars. All of us can guess and have an opinion. We can only live our lives and see what happens. :) Until then, why worry when there are so many cocktails to enjoy! :)

hueterm
09-11-10, 11:11 AM
How many Bloody Marys and Mimosas have you had so far this AM to be so calm?

Bro-Ham
09-11-10, 11:33 AM
huet, is there something happening already this morning that should cause me to be anything but calm? :) Cocktail hour will be in a few hours unless you give a reason I should need to be starting sooner. :)

drewsdeville
09-11-10, 11:34 AM
Why do you need a reason? Isn't just the thought of it reason enough?

Bro-Ham
09-11-10, 11:45 AM
As Ernie Hemmingway said, and I agree with him on this, "an intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with fools," how true it is. :)

Night Wolf
09-11-10, 12:33 PM
I have four exceptional friends that I've adopted as brothers. But only one of them is a car guy. He is close to your age, just about to turn 29, and when I first met him, he had a '94 BMW 3-Series (he now drives an '04 Audi A4). Several years ago, we took a road trip to Pendleton, OR in Betty, which is about a 500-mile round trip, and he drove a good deal of the return trip, including going over the roller coaster road near my house I love so much. As he whipped through a tight hairpin turn, he said, "I can't believe how this car handles!" Granted, I had installed a rear stabilizer bar like you had in your '79 DeVille, and that makes a huge difference. But the front suspension and power steering are stock, and they're a lot better than you'd expect.

So if you don't have actual experience with vintage cars, kindly refrain from making blanket, uniformed statements. As a freelance classic car inspector, I've test driven a number of vintage cars, so I have a frame of reference to work from. I've inspected several late 60s Chargers, for instance, and they have Novocaine power steering where you can't feel a damn thing. But the '69 Oldsmobile Cutlass W-30 I inspected last fall was a ball to drive. No power steering, but it was direct and geared for good response; when I made a tight U-turn, the return to center was very quick. I inspected a '69 Firebird the same color as my sister's, and it was a pleasure to drive. And when I was storing my sister's Firebird during her move to Alabama this summer, I took it over my favorite back roads. The car has a hesitating carburetor and needs brake work, but the cornering was flat, and the steering was responsive. Plus, it looks and sounds totally bad ass. Last summer, when friends from work needed a classic muscle car for a short film they were doing, I was able to use the Firebird, and when I drove up in it, everybody working in the movie — from people who were around when the car was new to kids just out of high school — were drawn to it like a magnet, oo-ing and ah-ing

Gary, you are arguring with me just for the sake of not agreeing at this point.

You are supporting what I said - I never said younger kids were not attracted to older cars. I said with few exceptions it is from a styling perspective, which your statements seem to back up. Your generation has its' own reasons to be attracted to these cars, but my generation has others. I stand by my statement that it isn't the excellent daily driveability, superior driving dynamics or load of features, but again - the styling is what draws *most* people born well after the car was made.

Nearly anything a 1969 Firebird can do, a 1989 Firebird can do better (stock for stock). It would also be a better daily driver. So what is it that would bring someone from my generation to be attracted to a '69 Firebird over an '89 would be from a styling perspective, with few exceptions.

You talk about people being able to drive older cars - There is no surprise there, cars were made to be driven - regardless of year, and people drive them. Along with that, I never said people can't enjoy these older cars and the type of driving they offer - you are fighting me as much as you can for reasons unknown.

I am simply saying that once you take styling (as a whole) out of the picture, the number of people in my generation that are attracted to a '69 Firebired for its driving dynamics are very low.


As for my niece's taste in cars, the one I gave Cruella to was telling me about all the classic cars in her small town's 4th of July parade, how cool they were, and how she'd like to have one some day. But I come from a car family.

Again, this is just supporting what I am saying. There is nothing wrong with a "cool car" but I am sure that most of the reasons why it is "cool" are styling related - not all but most. Some may enjoy the feeling of driving an older car offers. To me, this type of person enjoys such cars driving charasticis but mostly on weekends and such - it is not a car they would daily drive.

Which goes back to what I was saying - most people do not specifically seek the driving dynamics of these old cars. Don't change what I am saying to be that they can't handle our modern roads or are impossible to drive - but the average person that seeks a classic car does not do so only for the driving dynamics.

This is the same thing I've been saying since my original reply, some are just taking offense to it, which is why it keeps going on.

Of course the whole reason why this started is because others did not like my *opinion* towards my own car - my own car. I said good and bad about it and my experience with it and some took offense to that and insisted on trying to disprove my opinon - but it is just that, my opinion. If you don't like it - fine.

I simply stated *my* feelings towards *my* particular '79 as a classic. That is not to say I didn't enjoy or like the car, I just stated my feelings. Even in my past threads, such as the one I linked to, one can look back and see that even while I owned it - I still felt that it wasn't a true classic, to me.

My original reply wasn't negative at all, others just felt the need to pick it apart... let me quote the questionable area:


The car never really had a purpose to me. Of course this is just my opinion, but it wasn't old enough to be a "real" classic, like a '68-'76 era DeVille. At the same time it was too old in the way that a late 80's Brougham is modern in a few more areas, and, overall would be a better daily driver. My car had the 2.28:1 axle (IIRC) and while the 425 is peppy and very reliable, it just didn't seem like enough of an improvement in power over the Olds 307. It was quicker, but not enough to justify the big block, IMO.

I used it as a daily driver, and also drove it from NY to FL over the time I had it. I would take it out for drives or cruises, but I much preferred my '93 Coupe as it had a far better sound system.

The '79 looked good in some ways, but bad in others, from the back it just looked too cut off, while the late 80's Brougham had a very well finished design.

The whole time I owned it I kept thinking how it wasn't old enough to be a really fun classic cruiser, but it wasn't new enough to be the late 80's Brougham design I really liked.

That is what started this whole thing. Some felt the need to say it isn't the type of car I am now interested in, while others said that is not how I felt at the time - which going back to my posts of years ago, is not entirely true. It wasn't made to be negative in any way, just me simply adding to the thread since I have had extensive first-hand experience with the particular car in hand.

drewsdeville
09-11-10, 12:45 PM
I am simply saying that once you take styling (as a whole) out of the picture, the number of people in my generation that are attracted to a '69 Firebired for its driving dynamics are very low.

I can agree to this...I'm one of them. Having driven both, I'd gladly take a last gen WS6 over the '69. It's faster, more reliable, more comfortable, is flat out LOADS more fun to drive. Hell, in the Firebird's case, I think the styling on the last gen blows the '69 away.This is, of course, just my opinion.

Night Wolf
09-11-10, 12:47 PM
I can agree to this...I'm one of them. I'd gladly take a last gen WS6 over the '69.

Me too.

Bro-Ham
09-11-10, 12:55 PM
I drove the 79 Cad on the 72 mile 1-way journey to my project site and was reflecting on what Chad observed about my old tank being "light on its feet." I think one of the reasons the car behaves so well is that it is maintained to as close to a new car standard as possible. I rely on it to be driven every day as regular transportation, I could as easily drive a new car, but choose to drive my fun old heap. As gd noted about the similar vintage car he drove and its apparent looseness, I've noticed many old cars are treated as just old cars, and owners are unable or unwilling to make the cars what they should be to be a joy to drive. There is a difference. :)

Night Wolf
09-11-10, 01:15 PM
I drove the 79 Cad on the 72 mile 1-way journey to my project site and was reflecting on what Chad observed about my old tank being "light on its feet." I think one of the reasons the car behaves so well is that it is maintained to as close to a new car standard as possible. I rely on it to be driven every day as regular transportation, I could as easily drive a new car, but choose to drive my fun old heap. As gd noted about the similar vintage car he drove and its apparent looseness, I've noticed many old cars are treated as just old cars, and owners are unable or unwilling to make the cars what they should be to be a joy to drive. There is a difference. :)

In terms of wanting an "easily driveable" classic Cadillac, the '79 is among the top of the list. IMO It drives pretty much the same as a late 80s Brougham as well.

The car is an excellent highway cruiser. I drove it from NY to FL and it was very confortable and enjoyable ride. That car is at home on the interstate with the cruise set at 70, that is what the car was made to do and that is what it excels at.

But, as I said in my original posts - if I personally was seeking a "classic" Cadillac to cruise around in - not to daily drive - I would not choose a '79 DeVille. For the reason that it behaves so similar to an '89 Brougham. That is, it is *too* easily driveable and offers too much of a more "modern" feel. If I buy a classic Cadillac as a cruiser, I want the whole package - the crazy proportions, the landbarge feel/ride etc... which is why I said I personally would choose, say, a '72 Eldorado. If I was in the market for a '79, I personally would just go with a late 80's Brougham as it offers the same driving feel, but, IMO looks better inside and out and would be easier to find.

That simple remark is what got others' panties all in a bunch. The thread is about owning a '79 DeVille as a "classic" and I simply stated that from my experience actually owning one as a "classic" it did not offer the feeling I was after - for a "classic" that is, a dedicated "weekend cruiser". As a "classic daily driver" it is excellent - but that is not what I, personally, was after.

orconn
09-11-10, 04:21 PM
I agree withn Bro-Ham on the need to keep "old" cars in excellent driving condition. To me there is no fun in having a vintage car that is not kept up to "very good" to "excellent" condition. While it is not a "cheap" endeavor to keep an old luxury car (or any car) up to its' original driving specs, it is satisfying if your objective is to have daily driven transportation that has a style and comfort you enjoy owning and driving. When I was buying and selling my "business" cars every two to three years, I often longed for an "out of date" model just because I really liked its' styling and performance (I have always had to have cars that not only looked good but whose driving and comfort dynamics at least matched their appearance, which is why I chose Jaguar XJs for my business cars), and I achieved this with my '76 Seville as my weekend car (which I regretted selling the monet the sale was over). After I retired, and no longer needed a new prestige car for business purposes, I kept my Alfa Romeo 164S for 10 years only selling it after I moved to Vurginia and found that service on Alfas was spotty at best and non-existant if I travelled any distance fro a major city. I then bought the 2002 Mercedes CLK which after two years I wasn't happy enough with to keep, and sold to my son to let him run out the 6 year warranty that the car had. After my wife retired and her lease on the 2000 Catera was up we bought a '92 Seville STS (with 42,000 miles on it, in excellent condition which I planned to keep in excellent condition as a daily driver for her (we both like the interior and exterior styling and performance of the 4th generation STS's) as an experiment to see if a quality "old" car could be kept as a dependable daily driver at a reasonable cost. Reasonable cost, to me. was less that 50% of the first year depreciation on a new luxury car. After a couple of years her STS proved so successful (not cheap, but a lot cheaper per year than the three year depreciation on a new car. So off went the CLK to my son and I bought a really nice '95 STS one owner with 58,000 miles from an elderly couple in Florida for $7400. That was in 2004 and I have been driving it as my DD ever since. Total cost, now at 78,000 miles, has been less than $1200. per year including normal maintenance and I have had a car I feel comfortable driving anywhere .... and often get the "I can't believe its' 15 years old" comment. Even if I had to replace the engine due to dread N* HD syndrome I would still be well ahead of my cost objective. And I have yet to get tired of its' looks and performance!

gdwriter
09-11-10, 05:29 PM
Lets get the easy one out of the way. As a "freelance inspector", I'd expect you to know that the W-30 was an option on top of the 442, not the Cutlass, which were seperate models at the time...meaning there's no such thing as a 1969 Cutlass W-30. Minor technicality, but again, if you are the caliber you portray yourself to be, I wouldn't expect this sort of error. After all, how can you inspect something when you don't even know what you are looking at? Was this just a Cutlass with an aftermarket W-30 hood?Well, pardon me all to hell. I didn't go back to the photos when I posted last night. So shoot me. It is was a Cutlass W-31:

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs220.snc1/8731_156991333093_776743093_2569183_1473612_n.jpg

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs240.snc1/8731_156991448093_776743093_2569184_2152130_n.jpg

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs220.snc1/8731_156988368093_776743093_2569148_430300_n.jpg

In case you didn't know, the W-31 was something of a budget muscle car, using the same cold air induction from the 4-4-2 W-30 on an Oldsmobile 350 V8. The smaller engine also probably meant lower insurance rates, something that was becoming an issue by the late 60s, early 70s. Also, part of my job is to check the documentation of these cars (which this Cutlass had, including the original bill of sale from the dealer in Atlanta). If it's a car I'm unfamiliar with, the inspection company can look up the VIN to determine if the car is a clone or the real deal.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs220.snc1/8731_156988368093_776743093_2569148_430300_n.jpg


Now, onto the driving dynamics. Rick states that most '60's and '70's cars don't have very good dynamics, which I can agree to. What do YOU consider excellent driving dynamics to be? All you list is some examples of how the power steering (or lack of) feels and what it's like making a u-turn in a Firebird with hesitation and bad brakes. Driving dynamics go far beyond what you can do in a u-turn and a back road, go far beyond simple feel of the wheel, and you certainly can't comment on overall dynamics when the car hesitates and has bad brakes.Eh, go pound sand. Sure, there are plenty of old cars with crappy driving dynamics. I've inspected those, too. In some cases, such as the '67 Jaguar XK-E that was an absolute thrill, the owner said "let's go, see what she can do," and I did. Other owners don't want you to do much more than a quick spin around the block, and I include that in my reports.

Driving dynamics are all relative, but to boil it down, for me the question is, "Is it responsive?" That covers everything from acceleration, to braking to handling. Does this car respond the way it should? Is it enjoyable to drive? I'm pretty open minded, so I can enjoy just about any car, especially when keeping in mind its intended purpose. The hesitating carb and grabby brakes on my sister's Firebird can certainly be cured, but the cornering was flat with little to no understeer, and there was more steering feel than in the Chargers, where you had no idea what the front wheels were doing. And since we're going to get all anal about accuracy, it was with the W-31 that I made the U-turn and remarked on how fast the manual steering returned to center.


And you know, it's ok. With the your general taste that you portray in the lounge, old Deville, your current Seville, and the Impala, it's clear you are a "cruiser" type of guy and performance driving isn't exactly a common experience. And I respect that, that's fine. But when you are trying to come from that type of background arguing driving dynamics that I'm certain you don't fully understand, it's not cool.Short of racing a car on a track, I've driven — not cruised in — enough cars with reputations for handling and performance to have a solid understanding of proper driving dynamics. Cars like that XK-E, a BMW Z3 and 3-Series, Corvettes, Porsche Boxsters and 911s, Miatas, RX-7s. Ask LS1Mike how I drove his Firebird WS-6. Did I put the '58 Coupe de Ville I inspected on the same level as the Jaguar? Hell no. But I was able to appreciate how nicely that old Cadillac drove, including my surprise that it could go around a corner without scraping the door handles off.

As for the cars I own and performance driving, you don't know me or how I drive. You don't know the back roads I drive regularly. One reason I bought my Seville was because it combined a decent level of performance and handling with great comfort and styling. Yes, Rick, I know it's FWD and has an automatic, but cornering is pretty neutral until you really push it. You have take a very tight corner at speed to make it plow (or have Stabilitrak kick in). Which I've done. I will frequently take these back roads and push my cars (Betty, too) for fun and to work on my own driving skills. There's a sense of satisfaction in taking a line going into a turn, maintaining it, and accelerating strongly out of it.


On the other hand, I think the current classics are here to stay and be enjoyed by ALL generations. Maybe not because of their characteristics, but just because they are pieces of automotive history. Any auto enthusiast can at least respect and admire them old boats because of what they represent/symbolize.Well whaddaya know, something we agree on.

gdwriter
09-11-10, 05:43 PM
Gary, you are arguring with me just for the sake of not agreeing at this point.I'm not even going to bother reading your 918-word post because it's the same :blah: :blah: :blah:

Bottom line, you've managed to piss off yet another member (Bro-Ham) by crapping all over the interest and enthusiasm others in this thread have posted about his car. So the one you had wasn't your cup of tea (though based on your track record, I believe Bro-Ham's statement that you couldn't shut up about how much you liked the car when you guys met in person). And maybe you didn't mean to be so negative, but you manage to do it anyway.

People who love their cars don't appreciate it when others put them down. You've certainly got your knickers in a wad when I've said tacky things about yours (and no, I certainly haven't liked your regular insistence that my cars can't possibly have any performance capability). Whatever.

Bro-Ham
09-11-10, 06:19 PM
I agree withn Bro-Ham on the need to keep "old" cars in excellent driving condition. To me there is no fun in having a vintage car that is not kept up to "very good" to "excellent" condition. While it is not a "cheap" endeavor to keep an old luxury car (or any car) up to its' original driving specs, it is satisfying if your objective is to have daily driven transportation that has a style and comfort you enjoy owning and driving. When I was buying and selling my "business" cars every two to three years, I often longed for an "out of date" model just because I really liked its' styling and performance (I have always had to have cars that not only looked good but whose driving and comfort dynamics at least matched their appearance, which is why I chose Jaguar XJs for my business cars), and I achieved this with my '76 Seville as my weekend car (which I regretted selling the monet the sale was over). After I retired, and no longer needed a new prestige car for business purposes, I kept my Alfa Romeo 164S for 10 years only selling it after I moved to Vurginia and found that service on Alfas was spotty at best and non-existant if I travelled any distance fro a major city. I then bought the 2002 Mercedes CLK which after two years I wasn't happy enough with to keep, and sold to my son to let him run out the 6 year warranty that the car had. After my wife retired and her lease on the 2000 Catera was up we bought a '92 Seville STS (with 42,000 miles on it, in excellent condition which I planned to keep in excellent condition as a daily driver for her (we both like the interior and exterior styling and performance of the 4th generation STS's) as an experiment to see if a quality "old" car could be kept as a dependable daily driver at a reasonable cost. Reasonable cost, to me. was less that 50% of the first year depreciation on a new luxury car. After a couple of years her STS proved so successful (not cheap, but a lot cheaper per year than the three year depreciation on a new car. So off went the CLK to my son and I bought a really nice '95 STS one owner with 58,000 miles from an elderly couple in Florida for $7400. That was in 2004 and I have been driving it as my DD ever since. Total cost, now at 78,000 miles, has been less than $1200. per year including normal maintenance and I have had a car I feel comfortable driving anywhere .... and often get the "I can't believe its' 15 years old" comment. Even if I had to replace the engine due to dread N* HD syndrome I would still be well ahead of my cost objective. And I have yet to get tired of its' looks and performance!

Orr, I get complete automotive pleasure out of my old cars, a delight that I didn't have even when I was driving all the fancy rigs of my not too distant past. The older my 79 Cad gets the more it stands out in our world of new cars that seem to have blurred together. Cocktail hour is here - cheers! :)

ga_etc
09-11-10, 06:20 PM
huet, is there something happening already this morning that should cause me to be anything but calm? :) Cocktail hour will be in a few hours unless you give a reason I should need to be starting sooner. :)

I like your outlook on things Dave.

gdwriter
09-11-10, 06:22 PM
:yeah:

Bro-Ham
09-11-10, 06:22 PM
I like your outlook on things Dave.

Hey ga, life's too short to see things any other way. :)

ga_etc
09-11-10, 06:26 PM
Stop in N.GA. on your return trip south and we'll have a cocktail together. I'll let you fill me in on the finer drinks in life.

gdwriter
09-11-10, 06:44 PM
I'll let you fill me in on the finer drinks in life.Grey goose martini, no olives with a twist. Or at home, a simple vodka tonic.

ga_etc
09-11-10, 06:58 PM
Never had a martini. One of the many things I would like to try though. I like vodka anyway. :D I've always thought Skyy and Sunny D makes a good screwdriver.

77CDV
09-11-10, 09:17 PM
I do that when I look in the mirror - just before a shower, not on the forums :dance:

We have now entered the realm of oversharing. :eek:

Destroyer
09-11-10, 09:21 PM
Are you kidding? Have you been to very many classic car shows? Sure, there are many people who grew up with the classic cars of the 60s and 70s, but there are also a lot of people who own cars built way before they were born. And you know why? Because a '67 Tri-Power GTO is freakin' cool whether you were born in 1950 or 1990.

My '67 Cutlass 'vert is older than I am (by 4 years) and I love the damn thing. My '03 Jag cost me less and is a much nicer car if we measure "nice" in terms of handling, braking, acceleration, comfort and everything else really BUT the Cutlass gets more looks and thumbs up than anything else I have owned and is just plain cool. I'd love a '59 Caddy and a whole slew of older cars (mostly hot rods). There's something about the simpleness and fun of classic cars that cannot be put into words. They are just "freakin' cool ".

gdwriter
09-11-10, 09:44 PM
^^^ Damn straight.

77CDV
09-11-10, 09:46 PM
I can see Rick's point. Car people tend to gravitate towards the cars they grew up with or have a special significance to them. I do think muscle car values will cool over time as the generation that grew up with them passes from the stage, but they will always be highly collectible and far more valuable than their more pedestrian counterparts, simply because of what they are and what they represent.

Like Dave, I adore the 77-79 full-sized Cadillacs. I adore them for what they are. I don't care that they're not ultrafast. The fact that they can't carve a canyon like a sports car doesn't interest me. I own my 77 for sentimental reasons, but even if a 77 CDV hadn't been my first car, I'd want one, anyway, because I enjoy the car it is, as it is, for what it is. I neither need nor want it to be something it was never meant to be.

And that's the point. Like any other collectible thing, people choose a collectible car for myriad reasons, all of which are personal preferences. No one is right, and no one is wrong. They choices they make are merely different and to be respected, if not agreed with.

And Rick, your 79 was a sight to behold, even if you think now that you weren't over the moon about it.

ga_etc
09-11-10, 09:55 PM
Hey Destroyer, want another Cutlass?
http://chattanooga.craigslist.org/cto/1942026847.html

You were the first person that popped into my head when I saw that. :lildevil:

drewsdeville
09-11-10, 11:21 PM
My '67 Cutlass 'vert is older than I am (by 4 years) and I love the damn thing. My '03 Jag cost me less and is a much nicer car if we measure "nice" in terms of handling, braking, acceleration, comfort and everything else really BUT the Cutlass gets more looks and thumbs up than anything else I have owned and is just plain cool. I'd love a '59 Caddy and a whole slew of older cars (mostly hot rods). There's something about the simpleness and fun of classic cars that cannot be put into words. They are just "freakin' cool ".

What does this tell us?

See, that sounds to me like you like it more for the image, more for those looks/thumbs up/attention. And that's what most of the commentary for the classics have been about in this thread. They are just "cool" and "get a lot of looks". I don't like that kind of justification. I don't drive my cars to impress others. I drive my cars because they work for ME. And that's the way it should be. If you are driving your car in the interest of others, it probably isn't a wise investment.

This is exactly why Ricks BMW and Wrangler are great sources of pride for him. He's not looking for support or justification from this board. He really doesn't care if you guys enjoy them or not. He likes his vehicles and that's all he cares about. Because of that, he belongs in the vehicles he owns. They were probably better investments than many others who do nothing but complain here.

If I like a particular car for whatever reason, I really don't give a rip if it looks like an AMC Eagle to the rest of the world - I like it and that's all that matters to me.

Stingroo
09-11-10, 11:25 PM
If I like a particular car for whatever reason, I really don't give a rip if it looks like an AMC Eagle to the rest of the world - I like it and that's all that matters to me.

Truer words have never been spoken. (Except there may be an AMC Eagle fan club out there somewhere that disagrees... well... actually... maybe not)

Correction, apparently there is:

http://www.amceaglenest.com/ lol

drewsdeville
09-11-10, 11:26 PM
Well, pardon me all to hell. I didn't go back to the photos when I posted last night. So shoot me. It is was a Cutlass W-31

Much better. That's more like it.

Night Wolf
09-11-10, 11:33 PM
Well, pardon me all to hell.........So shoot me......Eh, go pound sand.....

Hmmm.... Gary can dish it out but has a hard time taking it back. It usually goes like that.

Gary, each of these little debates are the same - you start out seeking any way you can to challenge me or disagree with it. When you can't find anything, you make your snarky remarks for a reaction. You've even challengend by saying the gauntlet is thrown down and if I'll reply. Yet the longer these debates drag on, the more defensive you get, then you start name calling and so-fourth.

It is very obvious you do not like me, and it is also obvious you deliberately seek me out in nearly every thread I post in. You claim I talk about my cars too much, yet each time you seek me out, it is usually trying to disprove, disagree with or otherwise starting a debate, using your own cars and pictures in your lengthy replies as well. It dosen't bother me, I just find the pot calling the kettle black interesting.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
09-11-10, 11:43 PM
I like the kind of cars that I like, not what anyone else likes, but what I like. More often than not, the cars I like are regarded by the mainstream population to be bloated, out of date, socially unacceptable and gas sucking dinosaurs. I frankly really don't care though, as a matter of fact, aside from having women I know constantly tease my automotive taste, I enjoy liking cars that others really don't like.

I don't particularly care for the sort of cars that were around when I was growing up, but rather the cars that were classics when I was a kid. This all started because when I was 5, in 1992, my dad's great aunt Bernice died and my dad inherited her car, a 1957 Chrysler Windsor four door sedan, and from then on out, I always thought those '50s cars were super cool, stylish and super unique, especially when compared to all the cookie cutter cars today. That taste still rings true to this day, except it's not just '50s cars anymore, but rather '60s and '70s cars, up to the early '80s.

I don't really want another version of my first car, the '95 Roadmaster. Maybe I will later in the future, but at this point in time, I'm not particularly attracted to cars I've already owned, aside from that '99 S320 :drool: I don't wanna buy the car I learned to drive in ('91 Mazda 626), but it's always neat to see one on the road, and whenever I see one at a shop I call on for work, I'll take a closer look at it for a trip down memory lane, but I'm not the kind of type to want to recreate my younger days by buying a car I've previously owned. There are just too many cars I still wanna buy. :)

Destroyer
09-11-10, 11:44 PM
Hey Destroyer, want another Cutlass?
http://chattanooga.craigslist.org/cto/1942026847.html

You were the first person that popped into my head when I saw that. :lildevil:Ad looks tempting but I'm more into the '67 model. I'd like to get a '67 442 hardtop though. I do like the '68-'72 cars, just not as much.

Night Wolf
09-11-10, 11:52 PM
I'm not even going to bother reading your 918-word post because it's the same :blah: :blah: :blah: .

Yet you manage to reply to it? :hmm:


Bottom line, you've managed to piss off yet another member (Bro-Ham) by crapping all over the interest and enthusiasm others in this thread have posted about his car. So the one you had wasn't your cup of tea (though based on your track record, I believe Bro-Ham's statement that you couldn't shut up about how much you liked the car when you guys met in person). And maybe you didn't mean to be so negative, but you manage to do it anyway.

If Bro-Ham got upset about comments I made about my own car - that is his problem.

You see, this entire thread is a review of a car. A review is an opinion. It just so happened to be that the particular car that someone gave an opinion on is the exact same year/make/model/trim level/powertrain as a car that I owned for nearly 3 years. In that 3 years, I worked on it, drove it through all 4 seasons in upstate NY, took it on roadtrips, drove it from NY to FL, took it to the dragstrip, drove it to work/school etc...

Therefore, I have spent a lot of time with the exact car that was being reviewed. Was it wrong of me to add my insight to the car as well? Go back to my first post before you and others crapped all over the interest and enthusiasm of others in this thread. In my first post, to which you and others felt the need to chim in about and start this whole debate - I simply added my own insight about my own car.

If, for example say... I made a thread about a '63 Impala or an '02 Seville SLS, and I gave my review of it - not only am I very sure that you would make your way into that thread and comment about it along with your own pictures/videos, but I am sure you would find something to disagree with me about and speak how you feel about the particular car.

In fact, you have went on and on about your Seville in various threads when the topic wasn't even about it.



People who love their cars don't appreciate it when others put them down.

I agree completely. Therefore I ask you to show me where in this thread I have put down Bro-Hams car. Please, do....


You've certainly got your knickers in a wad when I've said tacky things about yours (and no, I certainly haven't liked your regular insistence that my cars can't possibly have any performance capability). Whatever.

You have selective reading. I have never said that your cars "can't possibly have any performance capability". In the threads when we were sharing opinions I said that, as an example, a large, automatic, FWD luxury car does very little for me in the twisties or for actually driving. After spending a weekend with a car that fits that description but is also faster and arguably has better handling then your SLS, I can back that statement up completely. That entire type of car, in that type of driving enviornment does very little for me.

You see, much of what we share on the forums is opinion. In the past perhaps it seemed like I was stating my personal opinion as fact. That is why I now liberally use statements/words such as: "in my opinion", "personally", "to me" etc... Go back to my first post that you first got all upset about and see how many times I made it clear, that how I felt, about my own car, was in fact - my opinion.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
09-11-10, 11:55 PM
IN MY OPINION this thread has turned to shit and needs to end.

PERSONALLY I'm disappointed by this.

TO ME, this is garbage.


Thanks to all those involved.

orconn
09-11-10, 11:55 PM
Cars in the collector world come and go in popularity and price appreciation. Back in 1978 I had my Lamborghini 350 GT up for auction at one of the Kruse Auction (forerunner to the one over in Scottsdale) in Santa Monica, CA. Among other cars their for sale were Marilyn Chambers"s ("Deep Throat") Imperial Limo, a slew of Ferraris, Maseratis, Astons and Jaguars, Rolls and Bentleys, Mercedes 300SLs all of which were selling for a 1/3 the price of a really nice Ford Model A! And well below the classics of the 1930's. My car never made its' $9500. reserve and I owned it for another three years. Ten years after I sold it, it sold at auction at Pebble Beach for $450,000. It wasn't until the 1980's that the great European GTs and racing cars started to take off in price. Then toward the end of the '80's Otis Chandler started buying up '60's "muscle cars" and within a few years these began their upward spiral. My attitude is buy what you enjoy. If it appreciates great, if not you still have an enjoyable posession.

Destroyer
09-11-10, 11:57 PM
What does this tell us?

See, that sounds to me like you like it more for the image, more for those looks/thumbs up/attention. And that's what most of the commentary for the classics have been about in this thread. They are just "cool" and "get a lot of looks". I don't like that kind of justification. I don't drive my cars to impress others. I drive my cars because they work for ME. And that's the way it should be. If you are driving your car in the interest of others, it probably isn't a wise investment.

This is exactly why Ricks BMW and Wrangler are great sources of pride for him. He's not looking for support or justification from this board. He really doesn't care if you guys enjoy them or not. He likes his vehicles and that's all he cares about. Because of that, he belongs in the vehicles he owns. They were probably better investments than many others who do nothing but complain here.

I am attached to classic cars for much more than just getting looks and being "cool". I grew up around these cars and they represent a better time to me. A time before the internet, a time before all the media and so forth. Oldsmobiles take me back to the days when I was a youth in the back seat of my dad's (then new) '75 Cutlass. Does it really matter? I just like driving my 43 year old Cutlass 'vert. Not because I get comments at every stop light and not cause I constantly get thumbs up. I sold my last one in '99 and, well, I just don't know how to phrase it. I just enjoy driving it and if driving is all about fun, I am in nirvana. :cool2: It's not the pinnacle in high performance but I will be working on that in the near future.......:cool2:

drewsdeville
09-11-10, 11:57 PM
In fact, you have went on and on about your Seville in various threads when the topic wasn't even about it.
.

Haha. You, sir, are very correct. Happens very frequently.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
09-11-10, 11:59 PM
Well it makes ****ing sense because this is a ****ing cadillac site!!!!!!!!!!

gdwriter
09-12-10, 12:11 AM
See, that sounds to me like you like it more for the image, more for those looks/thumbs up/attention. And that's what most of the commentary for the classics have been about in this thread. They are just "cool" and "get a lot of looks". I don't like that kind of justification. I don't drive my cars to impress others. I drive my cars because they work for ME. And that's the way it should be. If you are driving your car in the interest of others, it probably isn't a wise investment.Oh, please.

Nick and I enjoy driving our 60s cars. The thumbs up we get from other people is just a bonus.


He's not looking for support or justification from this board.He's not going to get it.


He really doesn't care if you guys enjoy them or not.We don't.


Because of that, he belongs in the vehicles he owns.Then he can go bore people to death in the Jeep and BMW forums.

And Rick, it's a '64 Impala and an '01 Seville SLS. I realize nobody actually reads your 500+ words posts, but you can at least try to be accurate.

Night Wolf
09-12-10, 12:13 AM
And Rick, your 79 was a sight to behold, even if you think now that you weren't over the moon about it.

Don't get me wrong - I liked the car, cared after it and enjoyed it. It just didn't offer me what I was looking for in a "classic" Cadillac. I remember driving the '79 and stopping to look at '72-'76 DeVilles and thinking "THIS is a classic Cadillac"

I was thinking about it during work though, and I think I found the reason why....

I grew up around the late 80's Broughams. They were always around and it is what I learned to drive on. Because of that, it wasn't a "classic" Cadillac.... it was just an "older car". But, because the 80's Broughams were already outdated, they drove just like the '77-'79 DeVille... because they basically were the same car.

TO ME the '79 didn't offer me the "70s Cadillac experience" because I spent alot of time in, and driving a 1989 Brougham - which I took to be the "80s Cadillac feeling"

Truth is though, what I was experiencing all along really was the 1977 Cadillac DeVille driving experience. I finally realized this today because both my '89 Oldsmobile 88 and '93 Coupe DeVille had superior driving dynamics compared to the '89 Brougham. That is because both of those models were new for '85... so they were cars that offered an "80s driving experience". When my mother would borrow my '89 Olds, she often commented on, and enjoy how well it drove. When they got their '98 Buick Park Ave one of the first things she said when I asked her if she likes driving the car was "it reminds me a lot of your Oldsmobile the way it drives, I like it a lot".

That is most likely the reason why to me I didn't consider it both in style and driving to be a "classic" Cadillac, and instead looked towards the older generations.... because essentially it is the car I grew up around and learned to drive in.

I did enjoy my car though. It had 15" real wire wheels (not hub caps) and the Ceder red interior which I have still yet to see on a Laramie Beige car. The d'Elegance seats/interior was among the best, most comfortable seats I have been in. Looking back if I still had that car, I would most likely keep it stock and enjoy it for what it really is. Part of me says I wouldn't drive it because of gas prices - but then I realize my Jeep gets about 1-2mpg better, so it really dosen't make much difference.

What it really comes down to is that if I was to buy another '77-'92 RWD Cadillac, I would personally seek out a '90-'92 fully loaded 5.7/moonroof/d'Elegance Brougham.... but that's not to say I wouldn't pass up on a mint '87-'89 as well. These cars are so cheap that it is not cost effective at all to start with a project, unless you want to do something custom or just for the fun of it - but instead to spend a few extra coin and find a mint, all original car. That is ultimately why I passed on my '89 Brougham - the car just needed too much work and the return on it wasn't worth it to me.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
09-12-10, 12:14 AM
I'm closing this thread. Yet another one with too much bickering. What happened to people getting along or just not saying anything if they didn't have anything nice to say?

gdwriter
09-12-10, 12:15 AM
Chad, I'm sorry what started out as an interesting thread about a car several of us find interesting deteriorated into yet another pissing contest between me and Rick, with Drew adding to the mix. Back to ignoring them both.

Night Wolf
09-12-10, 12:15 AM
And Rick, it's a '64 Impala and an '01 Seville SLS. I realize nobody actually reads your 500+ words posts, but you can at least try to be accurate.

Hey, give a little, take a little.... isn't that what life is all about? :yup:

Jesda
09-13-10, 09:54 AM
HEY GUYS.

STOP BEING JACKASSES.

Thx,
Management