Test Drive Review......1973 Cadillac Coupe deVille!!!

[I~LUV~Caddys8792]

Not as boat-like as I'd imagined....


So, like stated in the thread in the lounge, I've been wanting to drive a '70s (pre 1977) RWD Cadillac since I was 14, back when I first got interested in Cadillacs. The appeal of the sheer size, the power from the big block V-8s, the vintage Vegas style, and opulent luxury always appealed to me, but I never got a chance to test drive one...I've driven two late '70s Lincolns...liked one, was disapponited by the other, but never a Cadillac older than 1979.


Exterior design: 8/10
Of the 1971-73 Cadillacs, the 1973's look the best to me. The front clip looks the best to me, it looks the best integrated of the three years, and I love how big fat parking lamps occupy all the space between the high and low beam headlights. The 1971-73's look longer and lower than the 68-70s, and much lighter and aerodynamic than the 74-76s'. I'd have to say my favorite year for the '70s Cadillacs is 1976, but 1973 is 3rd, after 1975. I must say though, the '70s Lincolns, except for 1970-71, always looked better to me than the '70s Cadillacs.

Interior design: 7/10
The interior is a lot more ergonomically designed than the Lincolns from that era. It's not as showy or as plush, but everything is laid out so it's easier to read and use. While the interior lacks that over the top feel that the Lincolns and Imperials had, it's certainly not bare bones or stark. It's got a definite GM feel to it, like the way the dashboard is designed, down to the pleating on the seats and types of door handles used. The neat thing is, when sitting behind the wheel, when you look over your shoulder to merge, with the hardtop roof, your view is basically clear all the way until the C pillar, and that's a long way back. I should note that the interior was very quiet at speed, the build quality was still very good after 35 years (only one minor squeak in the dashboard...sounded like a leaf hitting the fan), and those were the heaviest ****ing doors I've ever opened in my life. The doors on my S320 seemed like they were made of paper afterwords, and not even the doors on that Mark IV were as heavy, and they were longer!

Seating: 8/10
The seats weren't as annoyingly soft as the seats in the '77 Town Car I drove...meaning there was still support and your ass didn't hit the frame when you plopped down in it. Obviously, there isn't gonna be any lateral bolstering, but who needs it anyways? It had a gold leather interior, with a one piece bench seat, which I never liked...I'm only 5'6" and have a lot of tall friends....so do they ride in back? But after 35 years, the leather was in awesome shape...no cracks or tears, and only one spot in driver's seat where the color had faded...and the leather was still pretty soft too, not as soft as the leather in that '72 Lincoln Mark IV I sat in last weekend, but certainly no worse than your average '90s era Cadillac. Rear seat legroom was immense too....probably close to an early '90s Brougham.

Engine: 9/10
The old 7.7L 472 CID OHV V8 is a beast! Acceleration and passing is effortless, torque is more than plentiful and readily accessible at any speed (ok, I didn't do over 65, but still...), and she will lay a nice patch from a stop....

There's nothing quite like seeing a 35 year old Cadillac smoke both rear tires, or hearing them squeal until about 25 mph.... The car was a bit quicker than that '78 Town Car I drove (460) and GOBS quicker than that '79 Mark V I drove (400....weak). The power delivery and acceration times mimic a 1990-93 Brougham with the throttle body injected 350, but the '73 seems to be a bit quicker from a 50mph roll. I did notice a bit of a lag in heavy acceleration. When I punched it from a stop, I put the pedal to the floor and had to wait a second (probably for the secondaries to open) then I was off. When accelerating from a roll, especially above 45 mph, I had to wait a few seconds after WOT before it kicked down and took off..

I have in front of me, a road test article from 1973 where they compared the Fleetwood Brougham, Town Car and Lebaron. They quote the FWB as having a 0-60 time of 10.2 and a 1/4 mile time of 17.6 @ 80 mph, so based off that, I'd say the CDV will do 0-60 in about 9.8-10.0 due to the 200 lb weight difference between the two...so not bad for it's era..not as quick as the late '60s models, but a lot better than anything that would come after it...until about 1990 or so. It's miles quicker/more powerful than anything from the '80s.....6.0L, HT4100, 307, etc etc.

I did notice though, that the 472 was very easy to start when cold, but it had a slightly rough idle...not sure why...maybe it was just out of tune? The 472 never really changes engine tone, even at WOT...it's like it never has to rev up to get more power building...gotta love the 4.06" stroke...!!


Transmission: 8.5/10
You can't go wrong with the THM400...it's truly bulletproof and built to handle what 7.7L can dish out. My only gripe is that it was slow to downshift, but for cryin' out loud, it's 35 years old (and not electronically controlled...) Under normal acceleration, it shifts perfectly and never skips a beat, even at WOT.

Steering/Handling: 7.5/10
For something that was 35 years old, it wasn't bad. I imagined a lot less feel from it...it wasn't bad at all...very comparable to a RWD 1980's-1990's Brougham. On curvy roads, I felt fairly confident in the tight turns, much more so than that '77 Town Car I drove (THAT was scary), but I could definitely tell that it's not what it was designed for. In fairly wide turns,it was easy to manuver, but when it got real tight, I had to slow way down, partially because I wasn't sure exactly how wide it was, and it felt like the front two wheels were gonna break loose from the tie rods if I didn't.. But in normal driving, the steering is most excellent for a land barge.

Suspension: 8.5/10
Not nearly as floaty, or as bouncy or as godforsakenly numb as a Town Car, whether it be a 1977 or a 1994. Driving that '77 made me wanna puke, but this was a lot better...it felt far more contemporary and normal. If I went over a big bump or dip in the road, the whole car wouldn't rock back and forth forever...maybe a second or two, but not bad at all. It definitely isn't as smooth over little bumps and cracks as a newer luxury car, but it's very good for it's era. But if you were after the smoothest, most numb ride possible, the Lincoln would be your choice. But not for me....I like a bit of balance TYVM.

Equipment: 6/10
It had a nice FM radio....sounded good for an old stock system...definitely not something from my era, but for 35 years old, it was quite clear and defined. The A/C still worked wonderfully, blows cold, runs quiet, easy to use and figure out. The lights on the instrument panel were way too dim for the modern era, but it was easy to read everything. I thought it was kinda neat to have a high beam switch on the floor...never used that before, and I don't recall this one having any tell tales on the front fenders, but I think it had 'em in the rearview mirror. Otherwise it had power mirrors, locks, windows, seats, rear defrost. It only had lap belts, no shoulder belts, center armrests for front and rear.

Overall: 80/100
I like how it drives more than the Lincolns from that era. It handles much better than the Continentals/Town Cars, and the 472, atleast for 1973, offers better acceleration than the 460 did in that '77, even with the '77 weighing in at 300lbs less. I like how that '79 Mark V drove more...the handling/steering was much improved over the T/C, but that 400 was a slug. I'm sure a 460 Mark V (and hopefully the IV) would be the best combination of Lincoln's excellent design and Cadillac's better driveability. But as far as '70s Cadillacs go, it's tough. I know the early '70s models have the most power and are the quickest, which is important to me, but the mid '70s models look the best and offer the most luxury, which I like too, so it'd be a tough choice. But I'd say when I get that '70s land barge I want so badly, it'll still be the Lincoln....either a Mark IV or a 460 powered (77-78 only) Mark V. I like how the Mark IV looks more, but I've heard the V drives a lot better.

I enjoyed every second of it though!

[77CDV]

It had to have had the front fender lamp monitors, as they were standard by 1973. That hesitation you mention on acceleration is endemic to these cars, a result of all the smog equiptment being ladeled on at the time. Glad you liked the car overall. Personally, I prefer the front end of the 72 (more elegant grille and slimmer bumper).

[Lord Cadillac]

Great review! Thank you for posting this!

[I~LUV~Caddys8792]

More feedback please!!!

[orconn]

As always, I enjoyed your review. It's great to hear your generation's take on a car that was new when I was your age. Let's face it these cars were at their best going in a straight line on the freeway ...... with no need to slow down quickly or make any thing more than a minor change of direction. On quality level on the "showroom floor" the paint and leather couldn't hold a candle to that eras Jags and Mercedes (BMW was known for the 2002 not their luxury cars as yet) which used lacquer paints and great smelling leather and real wood which topped the industrial leather and chrome plated plastic used in American luxury cars of the era (and remember Mercedes and Jaguar could still be had for the price of a decked out Buick Electra in the early seventies). However, used and taken care of as most Americans did in those days the Cads and Lincolns stood up better to use and abuse than their European counter parts. My impression at the time was that Cadillac's, not Lincoln's, quality improved with the introduction of the 1977 models, but deteriorated again in the 1980's.

Thanks again for a fun and enlightening review, Chad! Hope to read more in the future.

P.S. I wish cars still had floor headlight dimmer buttons, much better than than the column stock lever ubiquitous since the mid eighties. The column mounted dimmer switch was better for manual transmission cars (as most European cars were and are even today, but not as useful for automatics.)

[gdwriter]

Another fun review to read. I've always liked the looks of the 71-73 DeVilles for some reason. I like the grille and rectangular headlights on the 75-76, but I much prefer the taillights and coupe roofline on the 71-73. I think one of these would be fun as a weekend cruiser.

There are lots of 70s-era GM cars still out on the road, so despite the spotty build quality of the era, they're fundamentally soild.

[77CDV]

BTW, Chad, if you liked the Caddy's handling better than the Lincoln's, you'd love the contemporary Imperial.

[I~LUV~Caddys8792]

No kidding! I'd love to drive one of those, but it's so hard to find one. They seem like a great compromise between a Cadillac and Lincoln from that era. It handles better than a Cadillac, rides the "firmest", but has that great baroque look like a Lincoln does, and offers that super, super plush interior like a Lincoln does. I think I'd love to have a 1974-75 Lebaron Sedan, but it's so hard to find. The only negatives that I know of so far is that the Imperials had the smallest motor (lol) and they were the slowest of the three.

[Eric Kahn]

for about a year in 1997, my only car was a 69 coupe Deville, lots of power, no hesitation, just drove great, only problem I had towards the end of my ownership of it was the climate control wa sfailing due to vacuum leaks in the under hood programmer, wish I could get another one like it, my 76 eldorado just is not quite the same as the coupe

[Red_October_7000]

I too have noticed how in a modern automatic there is nothing for the left foot to do. At CAP we have a 1978 Ford F600 rack body truck that will keep your left food busy forever -not only do you need it to work the (very heavy) clutch, (truck has a 3+low "rock crusher" so you're forever upshifting until you hit 40 and then you just mash it to go faster... tops out at about 70 with the motor screaming, probably limited but there is no tacho so who knows, but you'd never want to hold that speed.) you use your left foot to change the beams AND to dispense windshield cleaner! I understand that on luxury cars from the 30s and 40s, and possibly later, the radio seek was on the floor as well! 4 things for the left foot to do! And now there is nothign for it to do so manufacturers put in a little rest for it because it is of no use...

[bicentennialcadillac]

I'm daily driving my '76 right now while the '79 is down for repair. The '71-'76 cars are MILES ahead of the '77-'79s in every respect, but I love them all.

[77CDV]

Originally Posted by I~LUV~Caddys8792

No kidding! I'd love to drive one of those, but it's so hard to find one. They seem like a great compromise between a Cadillac and Lincoln from that era. It handles better than a Cadillac, rides the "firmest", but has that great baroque look like a Lincoln does, and offers that super, super plush interior like a Lincoln does. I think I'd love to have a 1974-75 Lebaron Sedan, but it's so hard to find. The only negatives that I know of so far is that the Imperials had the smallest motor (lol) and they were the slowest of the three.

And best of luck ever finding one outside the desert southwest since they didn't sell many to begin with and their unibody construction coupled with poor rust inhibition and questionable build quality means the vast majority cashed out to rust long before you were born. I can't imagine many survived the upper midwest winter road salt-fests, and even out here in sunny SoCal, you don't see many Mopar products from that era.

Craig

[I~LUV~Caddys8792]

There is one for sale in my area, but it's at a collector car museum, so that would be tough to get them to let me test drive it. It's a white 1975 Lebaron sedan, with a burgundy velour interior and 50k miles on it, and they want $3950 for it.

http://ellingsoncarmuseum.com/

Click on cars for sale, then scroll down until you see Chrysler, it's the second Chrysler listing.

[Aron9000]

Originally Posted by I~LUV~Caddys8792

There is one for sale in my area, but it's at a collector car museum, so that would be tough to get them to let me test drive it. It's a white 1975 Lebaron sedan, with a burgundy velour interior and 50k miles on it, and they want $3950 for it.

http://ellingsoncarmuseum.com/

Click on cars for sale, then scroll down until you see Chrysler, it's the second Chrysler listing.

My buddy has a 76 or 77 New Yorker. It looks almost exactly like that car, only his was white on white leather.

[Night Wolf]

I test drove a '76 Town Car last weekend... car was NOT as described... man "mint" "show room" "collector" "original owner" "garage kept" "runs excelent" "paint like new" "good tires" can mean such vastly different things to 2 different people....

anyway... I can honestly say, and I thought I'd never say this.... but... I did not like that car.

As Chad said, from the outside, it is a sweet looking car, the front end with hideaway headlights, the slab sides and unmistakable Lincoln back end. Under the hood the "Power by Ford" factory valve covers were cool...

but I just didn't like the interior... just as that review said, as soon as you get in the car, all dimesions just shrunk in half, I mean it kinda feels tight inside it... to the point of not being comfortable. In all honesty, a co-workers new Honda Fit we take to lunch somedays feels much more roomy inside... thats just crazy.

As for driving it, eh, I didn't reallly go far, or fast or anything, it's a boat, but not like I was thinking, definitly rode smoother then my '96, but showed it in the handling too. The Speedo was neat as it changed color from 0 to your speed. Car felt it was going alot slower then it was... hit 70 and didn't seem like 70.... the old guy told me to "get on it" so I did and it pulled hard, the then said that it didn't kick down into low gear, to floor it as soon as I make the turn, so I did.... that was 1st gear, and I was just surprised a stock, average condition smog-era cruise liner would pull like that... put you in the seat and pulled hard... Hard to compare anything really, I'd still say my '96 is faster.

All in all, as sweet as the car was, it was just not me... as soon as I sat in it I knew I didn't like it (well I knew it was not for me when I first saw it in person, but I mean the car as a whole) I wonder if I'd have similar feelings on the Mark IV if I drove one... I used to think the "total waste of space" thing was cool, but eh, I didn't like it at all. When I got back in my '96 the whole car seemed to be about twice as big from the inside, then on the whole ride home (hour) I coudln't help but enjoy the fact how much my particular '96 is such a great car for me.

I dunno, I don't remember the 70's Caddys having that swallow you whole feeling.... I still think a '72 Eldorado convertbile would be my top pick.