Better Beaters - Building Cars and Daily Drivers

 What's in a name?

The first Coupe de Ville 1949.

Sometimes, quite a lot!

To me this name had always been magic.

Cadillac Coupe de Ville.

There are cars that carry a very impressive name and legacy. The marque and the model have become a part of popular culture. There are also many cars that are legendary in car collecting circles without an impressive name.

The '40 Ford and '57 Chevy come to mind of those iconic cars that don't have a particularly impressive name.

On the other hand, consider the Lincoln Continental, Pontiac GTO and of course, the Cadillac Coupe deVille.

Back in the 1950's, Cadillac was a marque that was often celebrated in popular culture and referred to in contemporary songs. 

The big, tail finned cars were certainly a car that the public fixated on. 

photo source: the Harrington Collection.
Elvis was a young man that could afford to buy a few Cadillacs..
and did.

The Cadillac was the "it" car of the 1950's. Always a fixture in the public's mind was the glamorous convertible. Marilyn Monroe was photographed standing next to her '54 ragtop. Elvis Presley's affinity for Cadillacs was very well known and contributed to the marque's appeal.

photo source: Tork US
Marilyn added glamour to any vehicle that she drove.

The Coupe de Ville had the appeal of a rakish personal car for the successful younger person on the move. Or maybe of an older person who wanted to appear a bit younger and more rakish. It was seen as a combination of power, speed, luxury, and exclusiveness. At this time there were not any mass market American personal luxury cars available. The Cadillac was special, it was desirable. But in reality, not too exclusive; many "regular" people dreamed of someday becoming owners.

If the prospective buyer couldn't swing a new model, a slightly used model would be more than satisfactory. Cadillac even used that reasoning in their advertising in the 1960's, where they displayed two and three year old models alongside the newest version. "The best new car makes for the best used car!" The Cadillac aura was so strong that even a ten year old Cadillac carried quite a bit of prestige. As long as it was clean and well kept. 

The ten year old Cadillac was the dream of many people of modest means, who didn't mind driving an older car.

I was one of those people. 

The Coupe de Ville was born in 1949, it was the first two door hardtop Cadillac. It continued until 1993. Though a lot would change over the years.

Later there would be two door hardtop models that were not DeVilles, the Series 62 was a slightly less expensive version that was sold for many years.

My '70, I loved this car.

Over the years the appearance of the CdV would change along with the evolution of cars in general. From a somewhat compact model in it's initial configuration, it grew much larger and longer as the 1950's progressed, becoming a finned icon in 1959. Definitely it's most flamboyant incarnation. The 1960's saw the Coupe continue it's popularity, even as it became overly large by the mid 1970's. Fortunately, it underwent a downsizing in 1977 which brought it back to a more sensible size. 

I have had several Cadillacs; some were sedans, one was a '64 convertible, and two were Coupe de Villes. My first was a '70 and was second was a three year old '77. My dream car.

Not my '77, mine was yellow.

Over the years the CdV had expanded and shrunken over the years. it lost it's tail fins in the mid 1960's, and it's impressive size in the early 1980's. 

Some models have retained their desirability, while others were less than desirable even upon their launch. After the '77 downsizing, the power was reduced by shrinking the engine from 425 cid to 368 cid. What followed was even worse, the HT4100.

This was a weak, 125 hp motor that was plagued with mechanical failures. It powered the last big Cadillacs of 1981 through '84. It also powered the extremely shrunken 1985 models, the smallest Cadillacs ever.

Maybe something was lost in the translation?

There are some cars that have changed and evolved through the years but they retained the essence of what they always were. There essential identity. The Corvette and Mustang come to mind. Both of these cars have been in continuous production for a very long time.

If you buy one of these cars from almost any year, you'll have an example of what made that car great. Some will look better than newer models, some will be faster and more civilized. However many of the earlier models are now highly valued as classics. 

Now consider the Coupe de Ville, depending on individual preferences, what are the peak years of this model? I personally like almost every model from the 1950's through the early 1970's.

My '70 was all Cadillac; big, bold, and brassy. It had enormous presence, and you could never mistake it for anything else but a Cadillac. The high compression V8 moved the car with a surprising amount of authority.

The '77 was a bit smaller, but still had that great Cadillac character, and carried some of the design cues from the early 1970's. The raised rear quarter panels and vertical tail lamps carried the hint of the traditional tail fins.

The less said about the '85, the better. Did the driver of that car ever feel that special pride of owning a Cadillac?

The '85 was certainly a "real" Cadillac, but did it convey the same image as earlier models?

I don't think so.

Luckily Cadillac designers got the hint and restyled the car in a more traditional manner.  It was lengthened, and styled to look more impressive. This last restyling carried the CdV all the way to the end of the line in 1992. 

This final redesign came out in 1989. This design was refined every year until the final model. It also received numerous mechanical improvements during it's run.

The CdV was no longer the biggest seller, as sedans had become more popular. I still find myself looking through listings on CL hoping to spot a nice coupe for sale.

I recently found this '89 offered on CL. I like it.

These generally have a vinyl top and smaller quarter windows.
I prefer this "slick top," and they are pretty rare.

Without the vinyl covering this backlight insert is very visible.
The quarter panels rise into a blade extension and vertical tail lamp.

The sedan has a slightly longer wheelbase
and possibly better proportions.

The interior looks quite inviting and spacious.

The upright lines provide for a spacious rear compartment.

Here's a shot of the front end, since there weren't any in the listing.
I think that the stylists did a good job with the heritage cues.

The '89 to '92 models had many good things going for them. The engine was improved; first enlarged to 4.5 litres than finally to 4.9 L. The power was increased and both the 4.5 and 4.9 have a much better record for reliability. Fuel economy was improved, along with space efficiency. Styling is a personal matter. There was a reintroduction of several traditional styling cues; the power dome hood and the blade rear fenders with vertical tail lamps that hint at the legendary tail fins. This particular '89 also had something rare to recommend it, it's a steel top, no vinyl top or opera windows. That results in a much slimmer C pillar, though the rear window still has that visible funky insert.

I showed my Wife the photos telling her that this was a car that I wouldn't mind owning. She looked at it and said that she just couldn't see the appeal. It was just a square looking, Old Man's car. She asked me why I would want a car like that.

I told her that a lot of the appeal comes from it being a Coupe de Ville, the last iteration of a storied line.

The truth is that the fabled Cadillacs of yore, the ones that were featured in popular songs of the 1950's, and '60's, and even in some recent Country songs, no longer exist. That "long black Cadillac" is gone. They have been gone for over thirty years, and they're never coming back. Unless you can feel that same way about an Escalade XL.

Does this last of the CdVs carry the impact of the earlier cars? Would I feel that particular kind of Cadillac pride if I owned and drove that car? 

Or am I fooling myself? 

A Fifties or '60's tail finned Cadillac is a cultural icon. The big bold early 70's models also exude the character that made these cars memorable.

A while back I bought a '97 Buick Riviera. It was also a very different final design that eschewed heritage design cues. 

1997 Riviera. A masterpiece?
Maybe not.

Taken as "just a car" it was pretty good. It was spacious, quiet and very smooth. The Supercharged engine was powerful and surprisingly economical. It was pretty big too, 208 inches in length, close to the 1963 model. Longer than the models from the '80's onward.  The styling was polarizing, to put it mildly. It was interesting looking, but maybe not handsome. There wasn't anything that made you think "Riviera." Gone was the long hood, short deck, and formal roof, that had defined the styling from 1979. 

It didn't really resemble the original '63-'65 models, or the sleek '66 to '69 models either. 

1966 Riviera. Definitely a masterpiece.

It was truly it's own thing, only borrowing the Riviera script nameplate as a claim to it's heritage. I bought it because I wanted a "Riviera." It never gave me the same feeling that my '66 did, and while I knew that going in, it didn't take that long for me to tire of it.

Compare that to how I feel about Mustangs.

1969 Mach One. My favorite Mustang.

Although my first car was a '66 Mustang, it was not a car that I really wanted.  ( I wanted a Cadillac!) There were models that I really liked, like the '69-'70 Mach One fastbacks, but I never made the commitment to get one back then. It wasn't until the 2005 Mustang was introduced with strong retro cues, that Mustangs started to get my attention again. 

You've gotta give Ford credit for this design.
It really gave the Mustang back it's mojo!

In 2007 I bought a new Mustang coupe. It served as one of our family cars for many years. Then I started looking for a hobby Mustang.

The SN97 is a car that will win you over, it did me.

I initially wanted to get a Fox body GT, but ended up with a '96 SN97 GT convertible. I certainly considered it to be a proper Mustang, though it was much different than my old '66 and my recent 2007. After owning it for a time, I really came to appreciate it. Then I added a '70 coupe to my stable. 

Finally I bought what I had wanted back in 2007, a 2006 GT convertible. All of these different models are real Mustangs in my eyes. For a time I even seriously considered getting a new 2018 model. Though it looks different, I still felt that it looked like a Mustang. I feel the same way about the latest models. They are all Mustangs, one is as good as another. To my thinking, my '06 is as good, as "Mustangy," as any earlier or later model, and I'm satisfied with it. I just drove my '06 today and it still makes me feel a bit special.

Would an '89 to '92 Coupe de Ville satisfy me in that same way? 

To be honest, I don't really know.

1957 Coupe de Ville. One of my favorite years.
This is how a Coupe de Ville is supposed to look!

I don't think that the '89 can make me feel the same way that the '57 does. But honestly, what modern car could?

That's the dilemma that confronts the old car fan. They have a certain mental image and emotional attraction to an early model car. However many times that particular vintage model is now too expensive, and even if it could be bought, it is no longer practical to own. Maybe they can buy a newer, later model that might still convey some of the essence that they found attractive.

You can do that with a Mustang, Corvette, or Dodge Challenger.

Just as there aren't any modern equivalents for a late 60's Cadillac ElDorado or Lincoln Mark III, the same situation exists for the classic Coupe de Ville, you just have to settle for a reasonable substitute.