Six Luxury Cars: A Car And Driver Comparison Test From one thousand nine hundred sixty five (With Some CC Pictures)
Six Luxury Cars: A Car And Driver Comparison Test From one thousand nine hundred sixty five (With Some CC Pictures)
(very first posted Five/29/2012; updated with extra photos in 2015) At Curbside Classic, we spend our days debating the merits (or deficits) of old cars, based on our faulty memories, prejudices and subjective impressions from so many decades ago. So every once in a while, it’s good to get in the time machine, and go back to the source of so many of them: the car magazine tests we absorbed as virginal (gullible?) youngsters, like this one of six luxury cars from the July one thousand nine hundred sixty five Car and Driver. I recall it so well, or thought I did, as it’s visible we tend to reminisce those details that reinforce our own prejudices (the Mercedes six hundred criticized for cheap switchgear and controls as well as poor ergonomics? The Imperial for poor workmanship?) Ouch.
Originally, I was going to do six separate lumps on these cars, with snippets from the original review. But I determined that it’s a fascinating time capsule by itself, so I’ll just shut up, sprinkle in some CC pictures, and turn the time machine back forty-seven years, when I was twelve and sucked up each and every word of this. Or thought I did.
What inspired this tour down memory lane was this one thousand nine hundred sixty five Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham, exactly like the one in the test, posted at the Cohort by wooriegi. It was obviously shot in Fresh York City, which is where the original test was done, back when C&D was located there. Is it the same car?
[Click on all pics for full-size viewing]
CC’s own coverage of five of these one thousand nine hundred sixty five luxury cars:
172 Comments
YES! I’ve dreamed to read this test for YEARS! THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!
Also, interesting/sad that there isn’t a Cadillac that flawless for $62K now, which would be the inflation adjusted price for a one thousand nine hundred sixty five Fleetwood. One thousand nine hundred sixty five was a weird, sad tipping point for Cadillac.
Gee; I’m glad I made someone glad. I do reminisce us talking about this a few times…
There’s just so much context going on, like… the Imperial was hardly out of the price sweep of a Olds Ninety Eight or Buick Electra 225, and it looks like it would have been slightly competitive with those cars, so no wonder they were such a hard sell?
More wondering this evening when I can pull it apart more, but again, Made my day.
Two problems with the Imperial. They tested the low-content LeBaron, which means its interior was below the level of the Fleetwood and Lincoln. But that shouldn’t affect its general interior quality impression as much as it did. The other issue is that this car is still railing on one thousand nine hundred fifty seven underpinnings (as well as still having that damn one thousand nine hundred fifty seven windshield). As good as the Imperial may have been dynamically in 1957, this was eight years later, and the Imperial was becoming rather obsolete.
Huh? Low content LeBaron? In ’65 LeBaron was the TOP model. Crowns were below LeBarons . . . . strange . . . .
Something’s wrong: based on the list price, and the fact that the text specifically says “this was not a top-line Imperial” makes me believe that they actually had a Crown, and mislabeled it a LeBaron.
I’m also suprised that the four hundred thirteen Imperial didn’t hit the four hundred twenty five Cadillac in this test . . . . perhaps Paul is right that the ’65 (continued through ’66) Imperial’s inward bod panels, belt line, chassis and dynamics were little switched since one thousand nine hundred fifty seven and that by ’65 it was long in the tooth compared to the competition. Now, if this had been one thousand nine hundred sixty two . . . . all one has to do is go back a few years to Tom McCahill’s comparos . . . . Insofar as Lincoln is worried for ’65 – Ford “cheapened” the Lincoln dash to where it was more Mercury than Lincoln. Look at the ’61 dashboard – a work of art!
Something is off on the Imperial. The LeBaron was the high end. The Crown was the base model. Also, those prices seem off. According to one source I have found, the Crown was around $5700 while the LeBaron was around $6600. Still, a LeBaron was fairly a bit less expensive than a Fleetwood.
The Encyclopedia of American Cars says that the Crown four door hardtop was $5772, and the LeBaron four door hdtp was $6596 Since their “as tested” price for the Imperial was $5596…something is off indeed. Maybe they meant $6696?? or $6596, the base price of the LeBaron? or? C&D screwed up; hard to imagine.
The picture in C&D of the Imperial shows a script on the C-panel. The Crown sedan didn’t have that, the LeBaron did. So I suspect strongly they had a LeBaron.
My practice with vintage mags is that they often used stock photos that were unrelated to the cars they actually had. I’ve caught both C&D and Motor Turd at it.
The RR shadow was either fresh on the block or almost released too and Jaguar did have a V8 they got the Daimler Four.Five which they canned it was much better than the Jag engines. A Daimler Majestic could top 130mph with that engine, one reason Jags were designed for I6s it wasnt to keep Rovers V8 out it was to keep Ed Turners brilliant V8 out.That 420G tank was designed for the US luxury market with soft suspension and ponderous size/weight, sports sedan what were these clowns smoking it might feel sporty compared to aircraft carriers like Lincolns and Caddys and the like but it was NO sports sedan and had NO sporting pretensions and it couldnt out run a Vauxhall Cresta in a straight line. Good MB promo.
Jaguar fitted Daimler’s Four.5L V8 to a few 420G prototypes. They were so much quicker (and more economical!) and better to drive than Jag’s own Four.Two that the factory calmly pretended the prototypes were never built! Politics eh. The 420G wa also used to trial the V12 before its release – evidently the V12 420G was phenomenally swift – they said it lapped the proving ground at well over two hundred km/h, the assets pressed down on the bump stops due to the camber and the engine’s weight.
It’s funny, because I have at least two reprints of this one (I may have the original around here somewhere – I don’t reminisce). It’s reprinted in both the Brooklands book on Cadillac 1960-1969 and the Lincoln Continental Spectacle Portfolio 1961-1969, and most likely the newer Cadillac 1948-1966 book, as well.
I especially like the columns on the Lincoln. I’m glad nothing’s truly switched – still an also-ran, but it’s a Ford, what do you expect?
I like a few of Ford’s products now, especially the Fusion and Mustang, but I’ll still take a Chevy if all other things are equal.
Give me a GM any day – or a M-B.
but it’s a Ford, what do you expect?
Hey man, come on, I attempt not to pick on GM without specific criticism… albeit for you (and me in some cases) its like Ohio State vs Michigan, reason and logic are just not part of the equation. 😛
Back in my youth, in the 60’s, if you were a car man, you either liked Ford, Chevy or Chrysler, no crossing over. You had to secretly admire across the fence, if your car preference was well-known and were adamant about it as I was.
I switched somewhat as I grew up, because a friend had a Rambler and my mate got a Volvo PV544. Also, I began to warm a bit toward Ford as a certain female I chased around Yuba City, CA when in the air force drove a very nice one thousand nine hundred sixty five Ford Galaxie 500! Hence my love for mid-60’s Fords!
There you go! “CC” brings all the memories and feelings back as I revisit all this stuff. It’s a lot of joy.
The Lincoln’s engine was one rough unit – it was used in marine applications for many years. It had standard front disc brakes, a big selling point at that time, and a stiffer overall structure than the Cadillac. Other contemporary road tests noted the plasticity of the Cadillac’s perimeter framework.
The Lincoln’s styling still looks remarkably fresh, given that the basic design was introduced for the one thousand nine hundred sixty one model year. There was no way that either Imperial or Cadillac could have successfully sold slightly facelifted versions of their one thousand nine hundred sixty one cars in 1965.
The one thousand nine hundred sixty one Imperial, in particular, was outdated the day it debuted, and the one thousand nine hundred sixty five model wasn’t that much newer looking when it was fresh, especially with that one thousand nine hundred fifty seven windshield and “Forward Look” outside rear-view mirrors.
I would have given the Lincoln serious consideration at that time if I were in the market for a luxury car.
The ’65 GM cars were a high water mark for sure! The Caddy was truly coming into it’s own- my dad sold these fresh back then! They had the fresh perimeter framework, the Turbo four hundred trans, the sleek four hundred twenty nine engine (I am astonished it pulled the Hefty Fleetwood as good as it did in this test!) The four hundred seventy two would display up in 1968. Don Draper drives a ’65 Coupe DeVille in Mad Man! I recall reading a review in the early 70’s about Mercedes. They were asked why they did not suggest an adjustable steering column. Their response was very Teutonic “We have spent years finding the ideal steering wheel position and you want to switch it?”
Would love to have a ’65 Caddy for sure! Another “non-belly button” classic car!
no offense John, but if Mad Studs were set in one thousand nine hundred seventy Don Draper would also be driving a Cadillac- it was THE ‘i’ve made it’ car for 2-3 generations.
I don’t believe it makes a difference, a Caddy was still a Caddy until after the seventy three MY, IMO.
I think that by 1970, Don Draper may well have been in a Continental Mark III.
you might be onto something there, jp. like the Frog in the French Connection? sweet set of wheels.
TV Detective Frank Cannon drove a Mark IV during the course of his display “Cannon”.
Don isn’t indeed a Ford dude, the series began in 1960, and even then Don drove a Buick LeSabre or Invicta convertible in the very first season, (however in the pilot he drives a one thousand nine hundred fifty nine Oldsmobile only seen all the way at the end of the scene)there was a brief period there he had a Dodge in the 2nd season(the only reason for that, I imagine, is that Don wrecks the Dodge while toasted driving and the stuido wished a cheap old car they could wreck) then Don gets the sixty two Coup deVille and its been Cadillacs from them on.
If the series runs until 1970, don very likely would still be driving a Coupe deVille, or maybe an Eldorado.
That one thousand nine hundred sixty Invicta is the car the Frogs used in the real French Connection. Note that the crime occurred in sixty two and the movie was made a decade later.
Tho’ in TinMen all the scammers were in Caddies
Very likely depends on where you lived at the time. In the town where I grew up, Caddy lost a lot of cachet to Lincoln when the ’61 Lincoln was introduced. By the end of the 60’s and early 70’s, the W108/W109 Mercedes were coming on strong. By this time Caddys were viewed as the cars for blue-collar retirees who dreamed a car that would be their last and had always lusted after Cadillacs.
I think one thousand nine hundred seventy one was the year that Caddy embarked cutting corners and got “cheaper” . . . much like one thousand nine hundred sixty nine was the year Imperial indeed commenced to get decontented. Look at a ‘Sixty-nine Imperial steering wheel! El cheapo design that isn’t much different that what was suggested on a ‘Sixty nine Plymouth Fury II or III.
‘Sixty-nine Imperial (and I love Mopars) indeed is a Fresh Yorker with lipstick.
The massive one thousand nine hundred seventy three Colonnade Cadillac Fleetwood WAS still a beautiful car.
I don’t think so. Draper would be ahead of the curve as far as knowing what the wealthy and status conscious liked, and why.
If his rigid had a contract with one of the big Trio, then of course that would limit him to that company’s top car. But assuming that the ad agency didn’t have one of the Detroit companies as a client, I bet he’d be driving a MB in 1970.
Not truly, if you go after the display, Don is very much a man of his era, he turned off the Beatles Revolver album this season after his fresh wifey told him to listen to it, he told the hippie chick that was waiting back stage waiting to see the Rolling Stones that he was “worried” about her generation. He told his daughter sally to get rid of the go-go boots she was wearing and eliminate her make up before he took her to awards dinner this season, Don and his wifey voted for Nixon in one thousand nine hundred sixty in the very first season.
Now towards the end of this season the rock-hard has gotten a contract with Jaguar, to prep up for their presentation Don drove an E-type for the afternoon, he says “the car does nothing for me” after driving it for a while.
The very cool thing about Mad Boys is that they characters have a realness to them, Don is all of a unexpected going to turn into a hippie because the calendar says “its 1967”.
Driving Miss Daisy also has lots of vintage Caddys. In the beginning, Boolie (Dan Aykroyd) has a ’48-’49 Cadillac Sedanet, then a ’57 Eldorado Brougham, and at the end what emerges to be a ’70 280SEL. And other than the brief appearance of a ’46-’48 Chrysler and the Hudson that substituted it, Daisy stuck to Cadillacs (’55, ’65 and ’70 models) all the way to the end of the movie.
Very well done and entertaining film, even without all the neat cars.
Typical arrogant krauts.
I was actually affected by the observed fuel economy of the Lincoln and the Imperial. Given that I would only plunk my money down today on either a Cadillac, Lincoln, or Imperial that fuel economy edge could help determine it for me. (I know that fuel economy didn’t likely matter to the original owners but it would now to me.)
Finding one of those three gems in the car market, I’d have to keep that stat in mind. Styling wise for me its a wash, all three of the American cars are appropriately intimidating and imposing.
I’ll take the Cadillac and I wouldn’t even think twice, I thnk the sadest car in the test is the Rolls Royce, its like comparing a one thousand nine hundred forty six car to one thousand nine hundred sixty five car, I dont car how nice the “hides” are, its totally outmatched.
Agreed Carmine they didnt use the newer RR Shadow might of made the Benz look bad
Because it didn’t come out until 1966!
Fair enough Paul i dont know the release dates country by country but the fact remains the RR is a very old model not the newest version.
I am struck but how narrow (75 in) and brief (212 in) the RR is compared to the Cadillac and Imp at 80in and 228in – very old looking indeed.
My college roomy’s Dad had a beautiful black sixty five Fleetwood Brougham. Black vinyl roof and brocade interior, fairly wonderful car tho’ IMO my Dad’s sixty five Thunderbird had more dash and elan. So many good looking American cars produced in one thousand nine hundred sixty five – no wonder it was a record year for sales.
I dont even know why they picked the six hundred as the best, its a nice car with some very interesting technology for the time, but its mostly out classed by the Cadillac which is…..$12,000 cheaper than the Mercedes.
You could have bought a Fleetwood Brougham, a Riviera GS and a nice Corvette roadster for less than one 600.
And which one conferred the greatest prestige? Caddys were dime-a-dozen; I never witnessed a six hundred until I got to LA.
That’s what sold cars like the 600; folks to whom the twice-as-much price didn’t truly mean anything, albeit it did of course. Kept it (and the RR) pretty off the hook.
The 600’s dont impress me as car of that price range should, very complicated and not enough luxury features, you cant even adjust the steering wheel and it looks like a 40’s car steering wheel and its the size of a bus. They are interesting no doubt, expensive, snooty, but they do nothing for me.
But I would rather have the three cars I mentioned over one 600.
How can you say the six hundred isn’t beautiful? I had the chance to see one first-hand and take some pictures, and it is gorgeous! The fellow was a retired doctor and had put just Legitimate,000 miles on it since fresh. Truly stunning.
I have never driven a six hundred but I have driven its close very first cousin. In this case it was a one thousand nine hundred seventy one 300SEL Four.Five litre, with all the hydraulic stuff. The car had led a hard life but it was still total blast to drive. The Four.Five V-8 ran like a train and revved like crazy and this was the very first MB to actually have a decent automatic, a three speed. The quality of everything inwards was truly the best I have ever seen except for the awful MB heater controls that always broke.
These cars were goes and above totally superior to all the American barges on the road. They went like gangbusters and made totally cool V-8 noises and revved to like six thousand five hundred rpm, which I had never seen on a V-8. They had superb brakes and the road holding was excellent, even when the car was fifteen years old.
The Rolls and the Benz were marketed to goes of state that was the price point and both were hard to get built to order type of cars the Caddy Ford and Chrysler were available at showrooms along with the Jag so no real exclusivity
In this era there might have been a few “spec” cars on the big three’s lots but the vast majority of cars in that period were built to order. You drove the salesman’s demonstrator and then set down with him and went through the options list and spec’ed out YOUR car YOUR way. Then you plunked down your deposit and took delivery of your vehicle a few weeks later. American mfgs actually were the originators of “just in time” production and the “year end” deals were those demonstrators or the loaded up showroom machines.
one should not overlook that both, the MB and the RR are cars to be driven in rather than to drive. If your chauffeur is large enough you won’t even see the steering wheel.
I believe the Cadillac would have the greatest prestige at the time.
You’d have live in a cave not to have heard of Cadillac in that era, whereas the Benz would have been a mystery to some.
I’d pick the Caddy in a instant, along with the suggested radials & firmer shocks.
Thanks for the article, Paul. Throughly liked it.
Totally agreed with you Carmine.
Cadillac, forearms down.
Thanks for posting this, what an awesome article! How dare they even come up w/ one negative or slightly derogatory comment on that wondrous MB six hundred Pullman? The Grosser indeed!
Anyone notice that sweet Corvair sprint fastback on page 63? ME LOVE!
Last point: ‘The Jaguar’s instrumentation ranks among the very best but the steering wheel has some acute edges’. They didn’t mean that literally, did they?
Yes, I noticed and very much liked the Corvair. I think the 2nd gen. is beautiful and that fastback would have made a nice variant.
Paul likely just posted this article so he could sneak that Fitch ‘Vair in :).
I liked this article fairly a lot. I wielded (about ten years apart) a sixty three Fleetwood and a sixty four Imperial. I have not driven any of the others. But as for those two that I wielded, I think that C/D hit the mark pretty well.
The Cadillac was just utterly competent. The Imperial seemed a little “old school” compared to the Cad. The assets was not as taut feeling, and it did not feel as nimble (odd for a Mopar torsion bar car). Also, the Imperial’s four hundred thirteen was breathing through a single harass, and never struck me as having all of the spectacle that it should have. My Cad had the 390, and I recall it as being very quick, albeit the four speed Hydro in my car didn’t hut.
Poor Lincoln was still using the old four hundred thirty – this would be its last year. The four hundred sixty two would very likely have helped.
I agree fully that Cadillac was at a tipping point in 1965. It was selling a car that was almost as good as the Mercedes that cost Two.Five times as much. This would have been a fine time to budge upmarket with some very first class machinery, which would hyave required very little fresh thinking. Nieither Lincoln nor Imperial was as well placed to do this. But from this point, it became a race to the bottom among the big American luxury Three.
They do talk the caddy up
The Imperial was a one thousand nine hundred fifty seven car with a bit of cosmetic updates. Chrysler was most likely spending very little on it, given its modest sales.
Interestingly, when this test was done was right after Cadillac had ultimately given up on the OHC V-12 project, which would have given them some extra cachet. With the V-12 and disc brakes (which GM suggested only on the Corvette in ’65), the Cadillac would have had a lot of engineering prestige value. Of course, in retrospect, it may have been just as well: the V-12 would have been a lot more expensive than the 429, no more powerful, and potentially troublesome. (It used a linerless aluminum block, a modern idea that wasn’t ready for primetime back then.)
Without a doubt, I would take the Mercedes Benz 600. I have always thought that was a superb car. I know it was Jack Nicholson’s dearest.
He drove one in Witches of Eastwick, correct? here’s my dearest grosser, the famous Crimson Baron.
Steve McQueen had a six hundred too if I reminisce correctly…
So did Idi Amin.
I believe Jeremy Clarkson had one too, or at least used to.
So did Jackie Kennedy
So did Pablo Escobar…
After a long long lousy day at work following a good three day weekend this was awesome to read. This truely is the high point of my day!
’65 was an interesting year to do a test like this, maybe one of the last where you could address the big three’s barges, a Rolls and a six hundred as if they were pursuing the same customers.
Also painful to see the ’65 non-Imp Chryslers described as “lithe” and “responsive,” two qualities that Europeans would trumpet in the ’70s after Mopar pretty much gave up on suggesting them.
They mention the Imp’s dedicated plant like it was a good thing. Nope. They were made in the Jefferson Avenue facility in Detroit, which had been spanking Maxwells together since before the world war. The Very first one!
Imperialclub.com has a nice selection of old “comparos” like this.
I’ll take the Cadillac. And if we can get Car and Driver back to writing such finish comparisons, I’ll renew my subscription after a 10-year lapse.
And if the stories were as well written as the one we just read.
A excellent read. I especially appreciate the no nonsense, straight forward style.
A welcome switch from a good deal of current automotive criticism that seems to strive for a hipster-like ironic detachment.
True, its a well put together article, with a lot of tech info, a far switch from today where every auto writer wants to be Jeremy Clarkson.
To paraphrase Simon and Garfunkel, “Where have you gone, LJK Setright?”
I always found LJK Setright’s apparent attitude insufferable. I’m sure he was well informed and technically competent, but I never felt like I’d want to sit down in a bar booth with him for a few hours.
Jeremy Clarkson & James May put their own MB600& RR Shadow head to head on top gear neither was very exceptional by modern standards especially in slalom and stopping distances having seen that its hard to take anything C&D say earnestly. Yes they in depth on the spec sheet but the driving impressions are a joke The RR & MB are meant as chauffer cars the Jag Id drive myself even tho’ its one of the worst they made in reguard to treating. The US cars are meh on our roads but the Chrysler torsion bars would be best even if the brakes are only fifty five Austin Westminster in size
In a ideal world, it would be very amusing to put these cars on a dyno at the time of this publication. I am indeed nosey just how little horsepower these cars are truly putting down.
I was wondering about that too. Low 300’s gross would be, what, maybe low-mid 200’s net?
The six hundred was rated at two hundred fifty hp DIN, which is almost exactly the same as the SAE net ratings. It’s SAE gross rating was 300. But I suspect those numbers were very conservative. The lighter 300SEL 6.Trio ran 14s in the 1/Four mile, with the same 250/300 hp engine.
Indeed, the 600’s power ratings are the most believable, followed closely by the Jaguar’s. The Lincoln, which is 100lbs. lighter and has more hp and torque supplies a 0-60 time 1.9 seconds slower than the big Merc. The Cadillac, some 800lbs. lighter than the six hundred produces only a .Two 2nd quicker 0-60 time. On the brief end of the numbers stick is the Imperial. Whatever happened there is well beyond me. Maybe someone switched the four hundred thirteen for a 318. (Kidding, of course)
I don’t see how they got a reading of “Four,600 lbs” for the weight of the Cadillac. My former one thousand nine hundred seventy Cadillac Sedan de Ville weighed Four,920 lbs (I had it weighed at a recycling center). My current one thousand nine hundred sixty nine Fleetwood Brougham weighs Five,060 lbs.
LimoTony: There’s a considerable difference inbetween “shipping weight” or “curb weight” and actual on-the road weight. Typically, that’s some 200-300 lbs for a big car like the Caddy, so your numbers are right.
My dad’s ’68 four hundred forty Imperial would, even when stock, deep-throat away my mom’s sixty five Cadillac Sedan De Ville, not even close. I think they got a bad four hundred thirteen in this test, the one in my mom’s old Fresh Yorker, stock as far as I was aware of was pretty quick. My dad didn’t like sluggish cars and after the Imp got a cam and some other work on it, it was undoubtedly a runner, and it sounded excellent with the dual harass. I loved listening to it’s slightly lopey idle in the morning when we were getting into it so may dad could take us to school. I reminisce clearly the morning we were on the way to my dad’s store and he stopped and got gas at Sohio (Boron, of course) and he figured the mileage was 9MPG. Pre cam exchange, it was over Ten. He couldn’t have cared less.
I just dont see the what you get with the six hundred over the Fleetwood other than better brakes and more problems, the Cadillac was even quicker than the Mercedes, and that the four hundred twenty nine which was at about the end of its run in 1965, not the fresh 375hp four hundred seventy two from 1968. To me, in 1965, you would have had to have been both indeed rich and indeed stupid to buy anything but the Cadillac, sorry.
Straight line quick the caddy might be quiker, but all day at 120mph it would fall apart, the european cars are built for unlimited motor ways and can be driven plane out the caddy is a wallowing turd at speed
But either car would mostly not ever be driven at that speed, in this country it wouldn’t even be legal in almost every state, so take the “high speed” factor out of it, and I would say that the average 80mph is reasonable, even 85mph, that Cadillac is still better.
A 60’s through early 70’s vintage Cadillac can actualy cruise at 100mph without falling apart, dont believe everything you read.
In their home markets at the time those cars would certainly be driven at high speed ordinary Vauxhalls and Austins had cruising speeds of 100mph + so a Caddy being able to do a ton is no big recomendation for a flagship car. luxury high end cars are meant to be able to carry their passengers in convenience at 120mph plus cruising speeds on long continental trips otherwise whats the point the creature features were all available in cars at a tenth of the price, thats the entire point of luxury cars their driving capability. Thats the joke of the C&D test they did it in a parking lot is that because the Caddy treats so well at speed?
You seem to have this fixation on the top speed an cruisng at 120mph as if that was something that you could just do anywhere at anytime, in the real world, even today, thats hard to do, not to mention in one thousand nine hundred sixty five with the tire technology of that era
Maybe you didnt read the article but they took all the cars up to high speeds, even the victorian pony cart Rolls Royce.
Again, whatever continent, the Cadillac is an American car, for the most part, we never need to cover distances at over 120mph unless its some sort of emergency, if you needed to go that rapid, you proably want to fly.
Sorry, Bryce – many of the American cars of that era could Lightly be driven at 100+ on end . . no strain at all. As evidenced by friends and relatives piloting these cars on desert and prarie highways. I distinctly reminisce my Dad piloting my grandparents’ ’66 Dodge Monaco (383 four bbl) at 100+ for an extended period . . . . contrary to opinion not all U.S. cars of the mid 60s through 70s were accomplish turd-boxes . . . .
You have evidently never been to Texas . . . or Montana . . . or Nebraska . . . .
ive driven several cars with US originated powertrains at sustained high speed Im attempting without success to point out to Mr GM Carmine that some of the cars in this test were built with high speed driving envisaged as part of their daily exercise where C&D found the caddy too softly sprung for that type of use. A Dodge at high speed no problem. Carmine seems of the opinion nobody in the US would drive swift thats why the cars tested werent capable
They are ideally capable cars, at 80-85 mph, you could drive one down the road all day long with out violating a sweat, I’ve done it, several times, even in a downsized 70’s Cadillac, you can cruise at near ninety without trouble, I’m telling thats where their sweet spot is, yes its higher on the Mercedes because of the country where its from, top speed on a six hundred was about 127mph, and fine maybe it could cruise at Ten/10th all day long, what I am attempting to say is that is not the type of driving that most of the car buying world does, especially in 1965. Superb for Mercedes, it can go prompt for a long time, now why doesn’t the wheel tilt and telescope?
Wheres the cruise?
The automatic head lamp and high rafter changer?
automatic climate control?
And yes I know that the six hundred did some very cool things to like all the pneumatic tricks with the doors but you have to admit that the Cadillac at eight thousand is super outstanding when compared to the Mercedes at a ridiculous $20,000.
I have driven all this stuff at speed at some time or other but an S Class MB is goes and above better. You can barrel down the highway at insane speeds and have slew of reserve horsepower and brakes to deal with it. Truly, anyone who thinks a Caddy is better than a big MB car or the era has never driven one.
Carmine, to quote F Scott Fitzgerald, “They rich, they are different than us.” People who bought the six hundred didn’t care what it cost. They could buy two if they dreamed. I see Bentley cars around here all the time. I think they are absurd but their owners want the exclusivity. That snob factor is what a car like the six hundred was, a feeling a Caddy could not do on this scale at this time.
It’s just an apples VS oranges debate with no right reaction. In the eastern US, or even the UK, the shortcomings of the Cadillac (other than fuel costs in the UK) would have been tolerable and the extra features welcome. For someone who did 100+ MPH on the Autobahn on a regular basis, the 600’s capability to get them home in one chunk would very likely make it worth the 20k price. There were still some people who thought power windows and AC were totally foolish in 1965; who knows what they would have had to say about four power vent windows and self-dimming headlights. The bottom line is that the conveniences of the Cadillac as well as the treating and braking capabilities of the six hundred have become standard on any decent luxury car now, so they were both ahead of their time, unlike the Rolls and the Imperial.
I can drive all day long at one hundred mph + in my sixty seven Buick Riviera. I don’t think this Cadillac will be worse. In my family we have a mid-seventies MB two hundred eighty S. The sixty seven Riviera is a way better car, especially when it comes to quietness, reliability and convenience. The automatic transmission behind the gutless MB straigt six is harsh shifting and the TH, or ST400 with the switch-pitch convetere inn the Buick is way better.
my Buick comes fra California and have 170.000 miles on it, the MB has been in the family since it was fresh and has only around 50.000 km or 30.000 miles on the odometer….
Austin and Vauxhalls with a cruising speed at one hundred mph in one thousand nine hundred sixty five ? Most of them could hardly break sixty five mph…. Vauxhall Victor, 1,Two liter and fifty five hp. Three thousand rpms in fifty mph.
The European and especially the English cars was utterly badly made in the 60s and even worse in the 70s. And look, where are they today?
In the 60s English cars had a unbelivable high marked share in Norway, at the end of the 70s they had a marked share about none. German and Japanese cars was way better.
Stopping from 100+ mph, on the other arm…
Yes and the only cars in this test with adequate brakes are not the US models
The Lincoln Continental was praised by the testers for its braking abilities. Front discs were standard on the car beginning in one thousand nine hundred sixty five (along with the Ford Thunderbird).
Fact is that in one thousand nine hundred sixty five at least a duo of states had unlimited motor ways, Nevada and Montana at least, and the national defense highway system was designed for transporting troops and armaments at triple digit speeds, despite the fact that there weren’t trucks capable of that speed at the time. The kinks and glance lines on the original portions of what we now call the interstate system were designed so that a Two’x2’x2′ box in the road way could be seen in time to stop that imaginary deuce and a half traveling at 100mph with the brake technology of the time. So doing 120mph in a car was entirely doable and was done by some. Personally as a youngster I did well over one hundred in Nevada in the back seat of my uncle’s Caddy for hours at a time while my cousin with the petite bladder stood on the driveshaft tunnel urinating into a coffee can held by my Aunt. Year later I did triple digit speeds in my drum braked sixty nine LeSabre w/o the car complaining one bit. Yeah hitting the brakes at one hundred would fever them up and not do a lot but taking your foot off the throttle slowed you down pretty quick, quick enough so that you would be able to avoid that Two′ cube in your lane w/o it being a traumatic event. That R&P (reasonable and prudent) speed limit stayed in effect in those states, outside of towns, until the federal gov’t mandated the national 55mph speed limit. Montana chose to more or less look the other way with a $Ten fine for “wasting resources”, IF the officer determined to spend his time pulling you over, which stayed until they returned to a R&P speed limit for awhile in the 90’s.
So no, many American cars of the era would not “fall apart” if driven at 120mph all day long, even when they were thirty years old.
Several cars with Corvette powertrains were tested by Holden in the 90s on European auto bahns and were found to be mechanically unsuitable for high speed sustained running as well as excessive fuel consumption. This was a GM division testing cars for that market so you are telling me US powertrain technology has gone rearwards over thirty years hard to credit but ok GM went broke for a reason
The SBC is not a Cadillac by a long shot, the SBC is the worst of the GM V8s when it comes to durability and is not suitable for sustained high rpm use with a long life. The BOP big blocks and the Caddy mills on the other forearm were usually coupled with gearing in the Two.xx or at the most low Three.xx and they pretty much loaf along at speed. When you have over four hundred ft/lb of torque you can still accelerate strongly or smoke the tires for a few blocks despite that gearing.
Those Corvette powered Holdens have since been sent to England wearing Vauxhall badging and are a success in that you cant go as prompt unless you spend about 10k pounds more at a BMW store. Some were given Pontiac badging and sent to the US and will be exported again next year with Chevy SS badging worst GM V8 or not they sur haul arse .
TIRES were the main limitation on sustained, high-speed cruising in those days, not the engines or transmissions. Blow-outs were common still common in the 1960s. Plus, many people who bought used cars – even used luxury cars – also bought the cheapest replacement tires possible.
Yes they make lots of power but they aren’t that durable if called upon to make that power on a continuous basis. On the theme of the day stick a three hundred fifty or even a four hundred fifty four Chev in a motorhome and if you get 60k out of it you are doing truly well but the Olds four hundred fifty five powered motorhomes will keep on going for twice that mileage w/o issue, of course you be substituting a few drive chains in the transalxe in the FWD versions.
I’m paraphrasing the article, but it said that the Caddy was a victim of it’s own success. They sold so many of them that they no longer had all that much prestige.
I’ve always thought this was the main reason for MBs ascendency – the Caddy’s were becoming too common. There is no doubt the MB was a truly good car – from an enthusiast POV. It’s just hard to believe that people who were content to waft along in isolation abruptly took an interest treating and braking. These are nice talking points for explaining why one bought a MB, but the real reason may have had more to do with all those people not fairly of one’s class also driving Caddys.
There’s an interesting C/D article from one thousand nine hundred seventy five in which Don Sherman admitted that in terms of sheer A-to-B convenience (noise levels, rail harshness, etc.), the Ford LTD was superior to the contemporary big Mercedes.
That was Pat Bedard.
Oops, you’re right.
But Cadillacs had been pretty common high end cars for at least fifteen years. Only Packard came close in yearly sales totals, and those were propped up by decidedly Oldsmobile priced Clippers.
And it wasn’t the six hundred series cars truly switching minds either, it was the more common garden multitude 220SE or three hundred Sedan, that were most likely cross shopped by quiet a few people that maybe actually thought their latest American cars were becoming complacent.
I’d count My Aunt Linda and her Hubby as people that went from Big Buicks in the late 60s to Mercedes and Jaguars instead of Cadillac, and the sunroof, real wood and more playful character of those cars versus an American Luxury Boat were in addition to the snob appeal they surely desired.
A one thousand nine hundred sixty seven DeVille is like a resort, three hundred 6.Three SEL is like an off the hook chateau. Despite a lack of features, a late 60s Mercedes had better workmanship than any Cadillac past 1966.. I think you can’t disregard the factor of how fine an approximation of a Cadillac a Ninety Eight or Electra two hundred twenty five was in comparison, either.
I think what Cadillac indeed should have done was suggest the LaSalle again (rebody the slow selling Opel Diplomats?) and they would have lost far fewer “snob appeal” or “the Eldorado is still to thick” buyers in the same price range of where they suggested the Calais, and moved every other Cadillac up in price by $500-$1000, which would have made the Fleetwood a true $Ten,000 car when that price meant something. But Cadillac, and General Motors as a entire spotted volume as the only true sign of success when they still commanded at least half of the market.
Not only was this the era that embarked Cadillacs downslide, it was all GM brands losing their photo. You can’t blame the buyers, GM internally did it to themselves.
That pretty rain soaked black sixty five just makes me imagine Roger Sterling comming out of the buidling, hat in mitt and strolling over to the drivers door and getting in.
It seems to me this article captures Detroit at the height of their “fat, dumb, and blessed” era. They were making gobs of money for the shareholders, the managers were all getting big bonuses, the workers were all getting slew of overtime. From that point of view, it’s effortless to understand why nobody dreamed to rock the boat. Why invest in technology beyond auto temp control and auto headlamp dimmers?
Well, within five years M-B was gaining major share in the luxury market, and within 10-15 years the Japanese were eating Detroit’s lunch in puny cars.
And yet well into the 80’s the marketing types in Detroit insisted they understood “their” customers. The problem was their customers were rapidly aging and dying off.
The average M-B customer of the early 70’s didn’t have a clue what four-wheel disc brakes, independent rear suspension, or overhead cams were, it just sounded cool and high tech, and they dreamed it. It took Detroit about forever to understand that high-income buyers could be swayed by a technical sell against cars that were following an age-old pattern.
I also think that, in particular, Cadillac’s success fated them. Once Caddy introduced the Calais, they were just too common, and could be seen everywhere, being driven by people who are NOTD (“not our type dear”). Yeah, there was snobbery afoot (and most likely some racism as well), but Caddy brought it on themselves by pursuing share at any cost.
As I said in my comment on the “cars we love to hate” thread, this generation of Detroit metal is frustrating, because Detroit had the money to be leading the world in technology, but chose not to, and then paid the price.
The Calais was just a fresh series name for what had been the Series 62, if I recall correctly. It didn’t truly take Cadillac to a lower price point.
The big problem with American cars of the era and the thickest cause of customer flight to the European and Japanese brands was reliability. American cars broke down right and left. Do you know anyone who wielded a 1980’s era Cadillac that didn’t have to install at least one fresh transmission? How many people with Benzes had to do the same?
Interesting aside on the possibly racist motivations behind “snob appeal” – my (white) family lived in an up-and-coming, predominantly black neighborhood in Atlanta from the late 60s to mid-70s, and I recall that among the successful black folks, most of them puny business owners, an entry-level Cadillac was often the very first big status symbol to be purchased once they had entered “securely middle class” territory. Even if they couldn’t fairly spread to a fresh Caddy, they often would opt for a year-old used one over a less prestigious fresh car.
At the same time, more and more of the rich, white and very Southern lawyers and doctors from the suburbs were buying their very first imports. Coincidence?
Of course one cannot leave behind the influence of the used, often questionably modified, Caddies and Lincolns driven by Atlanta’s many hustlers, dealers and other “studs of leisure” – of all colors and backgrounds. I recall the baroque Lincoln private coupes being very popular with that crowd.
Nothing was as strikingly killer as those 64-76 Imperials. YMMV, but I love the look of those cars…
The article mentions the Mercedes having the brakes (paraphrased) actuated by compressed air from the suspension system? What happens if that fails? Imagine getting something like the Mercedes immobilized in one thousand nine hundred sixty five when no one knew what they were! Of course, I suppose if you could afford one in 1965, you didn’t worry about such plebian things as repairs. . . the upkeep on the thing would horrify me. Superb Article!
Trucks use a similar system its elementary and very reliable
My Dad had a triple black ’67 Brougham, with the same basic driveline as the test ’65 shown in the article. They were quick cars for their size, and ’65-67 used a variable pitch stator in the transmission which I believe gave the car an extra boost. The interior of our ’67 was beautiful, with rich brocade, fold down trays, footrests etc. Keep in mind that these cars were railing around on bias ply tires inflated to around twenty two psi. When tooled with radials and decent inflation, gas front shocks and the rear air suspension, they were not that bad a treating car, and were better than most domestics. See the Motor Trend test of the ’73 Fleetwood for extra treating comments. My ’68 or ‘Sixty nine with the four hundred seventy two (they dropped the variable stator embarking that year) doesn’t feel any quicker from a seat of the pants perspective that the ’67, and they all have that yam-sized torque thrust off of the line that I miss in newer cars. Mileage with my 472’s run around 16-18mpg (US) on the highway, driven conservatively at about sixty five mph, which is equal to my three hundred fifty Chev, and about the same as my departed three hundred eighteen Valiant, so it would be interesting to see what they could have done with modern engine management and an overdrive transmission.
Picture was taken in ’91, but there are a duo of K-cars in the background for Zackman to drool over..
Trunk escutcheon is wrong…had to use a Deville decklid, and the wreath didn’t fit without some drilling and packing.
Very nice, I have conflict with 66-67-68 Broughams, I love the fold down trays in the rear of the 66-67. I like the slanted power window controls on the doors of the 67’s, but I truly like the four hundred seventy two instead of the 429, which is just in my head anyway, there’s indeed nothing wrong with the 429, I do also like the hidden wipers of the 68, but then again there are the last of the fins, sixty four models too.
All Broughams through sixty eight however have my dearest power window control of all time, eight button front vent-window-window-rear vent, power window control on the drivers door, I recall the very first one of those I ever spotted when I was a kid, I was so amazed by the number of window controls that it has stayed in my head til this day.
I loved that power window swith assembly on my sixty three as well. As a teenager, that was the height of luxury, to be able to pivot those little rear door vent windows out.
In a mini-review of each one thousand nine hundred sixty eight car, Car and Driver said that, with better shocks, a standard Cadillac made a excellent road car, as the treating was good for that time, and the air conditioning and adjustable power seats truly did improve driver convenience.
“Cadillac..hydraulically locking doors” WTF am I reading?? Imagine having to have those immobilized today! No one would have a clue about them.
Yep, until at least one thousand nine hundred sixty six or 67, most of the GM higher end cars had a vac power lock set up, so they hisssssed shut, instead of the more familar clack-clunk of the common GM power door lock set up.
Yup they showcased that they didn’t indeed know the cars they were writing about since the lock were vacuum operated not hydraulic on the Caddy and I’m pretty sure on the Mercedes too, I’m pretty sure the Mercedes power windows were also vacuum too.
And they would not lock totally in unison, either. In my sixty three Fleetwood, the locks on the four doors would lock with three syllables – like “Cadillac”.
That reminds me of my one thousand nine hundred ninety one Volvo 940SE. When you hit the door lock, all four doors would lock at once, then there would be a muted ‘thunk’ as the trunk locked about one 2nd later.
The things that trigger memories…
Wonder if that was deliberate, to sort of underline what you’d bought?
Wow. Any of them, Any of them. BTW, the CPI from one thousand nine hundred sixty five to two thousand twelve is a bit over 7X. Not even Rolls builds anything like that today. We have lost fairly a bit.
Interesting article. I like how they say they are “going to attempt to put aside their enthusiast leanings and consider the cars as the average American would”, then of course threw that out the window and crowned the Mercedes the winner despite the fact that if failed in so many factors that would have been significant to the “average luxury car buyer” of one thousand nine hundred sixty five while the Caddy excelled in them and the Lincoln was very competent at. Like a transmission that you couldn’t tell was shifting and having luxury features like a six way power seat, tilt & tele or tilt only steering column, cruise control, AC that would freeze you out in triple digit temps, lots of chrome, room for six large passengers ect.
My thoughts exactly, not only did it miss so many factors, but its price was 2x’s more than the Cadillac, insane.
Kind of like any C&D comparison test with a BMW, you can save ten minutes of reading, knowing they’ll pick the BMW every time.
They may have tested a six hundred in this group but in reality few would earnestly have considered one against the Cad or Lincoln. They most likely would look at a W108 or W109, at less than half the price, and many bought one too. In all the years the six hundred was in production – something like eighteen years if memory serves me correctly – they made fewer than three thousand of all variants combined. It was ever intended to be a competitor for these Caddy models and frankly was aimed at a much more rarified market. I agree that US luxury cars of the era were just as rapid or quicker and were reliable high speed all day cruisers. However when it came to cornering, braking and genuine long distance convenience there is no comparison – the six hundred reigns supreme, a fact acknowledged in almost every contemporary test.
I greatly liked this article, and the entire other tech article that went with it. Top notch writing.
I was indeed struck by the then-novel features, like central locking, good cruise control, good AC, power windows, and mirrors you can adjust from inwards the car. Such luxury! All standard in almost every economy car today.
Interesting point the tech article made about hydraulic actuators everywhere being lighter than electrified motors. Rare-earth magnets have transformed electrical motors that doo all those jobs now. They were discovered the year after this test, 1966, and only went into volume production in the 1990s.
For Your Information, wooriegi is me. the caddy was truly stunning. i wish i had more than my cell phone with me. it appeared to be in original condition with just a touch of patina. the interior was flawless, too.
Awesome article – and fascinating to read the C&D test too! I like all the cars, but the Mk X Jag is my #1. Since I was a teenager, a Mk X/420G is the #1 classic that I will own some day. I just love the styling and the overall look and feel of them (I base ‘feel’ on my practices sitting in them on dealer lots as a kid). The sugary one pictured below is my favourite colour for them, and is presently for sale here on trademe, but at NZ$28K it’s twice what mint ones usually go for, and precisely NZ$27,995 more than I presently can afford. My lottery-winning desire is to buy a 420G and have Beacham Jaguar (possessed by Bryce’s Doctor) – http://www.beacham-jaguar.co.nz – do one of their brilliant resto-mod updates for me. Ah, blessed days.
Those 420s were going cheap at one stage Iguess people woke up to them.Beachams do some awesome work I read about the 30s V12 RR they did up $Two million or so it cost but the original engine got fuel injected modern automqatic and not some shitbox turbo three hundred fifty it got turned into a resto mod that couldnt be spotted very cool if youve got the coin there aint much that clothing cant do
I’m in the midst of restoring a Jag 420G. Love them. Its just been painted Botanical Green Metallic, a 2010-2011 Jag XF Dark Green colour. By the standards of many cars they are big but in this comparison it is the “compact”.
Awesome! I’m so envious! I witnessed my very first one on a 1980s kids TV display named “Terry and The Gunrunners” (based on the NZ book of the name). It was pink with cerise interior, and the bad guys blasted everywhere in it. Even with the unique colour, I was instantly in love with the form, still am. Wheels magazine used to poke respectful joy at 420Gs too – I recall they called them “Old fatty the G”, and said once they lifted their skirts they could earnestly hustle on the back roads. Made me laugh anyway. I will certainly own one one day (my local mechanic is ex Jag-NZ, so that’ll be the servicing etc sorted), hopefully sooner than later.
Are you in Oz or NZ? A duo Oz 420Gs I’ve seen imported here to NZ had factory a/c – a weird set-up in the boot feeding air through the rear parcel shelf, but with the compressor etc up front in the engine bay (that’s some truly long piping connecting it all). There was a late one thousand nine hundred seventy ex-Oz one on trademe a duo years ago with factory a/c, factory sunroof and p/windows; all the options I hope to have one day. I hope you post some pics of yours when it’s done – I’m a fan already!
I’m in Australia. Interesting test and I’m not astonished by C/Ds comments about the MK X. They pretty much were an E-Type drive train with a enormous monocoque bodyshell drapped over them. Same triple carb SU motor, manual versions had the same Moss box and the rear IRS was the same except a broader 58″ track. Front suspension is different, coil overs in the MK X instead of torsion bars in the E but the same disk brakes all round. The powerless link in the braking in early Mk X’s was the bellows system Kelsey Hayes brake booster albeit the later MK X Four.2L’s and 420G’s went to a normal vacuum brake booster. The nature of this sort of drive line is that it is going to be better treating but a revvy engine especially compared with the other five car’s big cube V8’s. Notice the 0-60 time is pretty good, in the middle of the pack despite the cylinder and hp disadvantage but the nature of its power delivery suits an E-Type, not a luxury car. Your comments about the A/C are dead right, mine doesn’t have it but that was the system, mounted in the boot. The review comments about the lack of “kit” is true but by the standards of English cars it was good. Even against Benzs (excluding the Grosser) the Jag would be pretty good. It pays to appreciate that where American cars lead the world from the late 30’s up until most likely the early 70’s was in convenience and convience features. Auto gearbox, Power Steering, A/C, Cruise Control, Climate Control, Power Seats, Windows etc. An English car in the 1940’s and 50s would have been luxurious if it had wooden picnic tables. Many Yank Tanks were still assets on framework, drum brakes, leaf springs, live axles, OHV motors well into the 80’s. In the end MB trumped them when it caught up with the luxury features plus with better engineering and technology.
Thank you, Paul, for posting this test. I have the test in a Brooklands book, but it’s joy to discuss it with the best and the brightest!
When considering Mercedes, it’s significant to reminisce that, in the mid-1960s, it was suggesting cars that were much cheaper than a Cadillac or a Lincoln, if I recall correctly. In essence, the Mercedes-Benz nameplate was the equivalent of General Motors, not just Cadillac, as it sold vehicles at several price points.
Mercedes did suggest a more solid assets and better treating compared to the Cadillac, but its automatic transmission shifted harshly and earnestly sapped spectacle, its air conditioning was a joke (while Cadillac was suggesting automatic climate control!) and its reliability was not superior to that of the Cadillac.
Cadillac, tho’, began to drop the ball around this time by leisurely decontenting its cars in the quest for volume. This indeed became apparent with the one thousand nine hundred seventy one models, but the process embarked in the late 1960s.
Interestingly, while I love the car, the one thousand nine hundred sixty seven Eldorado is the car that indeed shows signs of Cadillac wanting to have its cake and eat it, too. On the palm, it was beautifully styled and built (Car and Driver said its coachwork equalled anything from Mercedes-Benz or Rolls-Royce) with a reliable, unique front-wheel-drive layout.
BUT, Cadillac chose not to equip it with standard disc brakes for 1967, which was crazy, given its weight, front-wheel-drive layout and spectacle capabilities. That car should have had FOUR-WHEEL disc brakes as standard – it was supposed to be the ultimate Cadillac, for weeping out noisy! And, if I recall correctly, if you ordered the leather interior, only the front seats were indeed upholstered in leather, and even then, it was only the seating surfaces.
That nickel-and-dime attitude would cost Cadillac dearly in the coming years…
This would have driven up the price of the Eldorado, but it would have also made it even more sensational. If there was one thing Cadillac needed at that time, it was the aura of exclusivity.
At any rate, it wasn’t as tho’ GM wasn’t selling enough Impalas, Catalinas and A-bodies – not to mention DeVilles – to keep the factories running and make up for any volume lost as a result of an even pricier Eldorado.
Wow, a excellent read! I find it surprising how they picked the MB as #1 after going on about it has the most boring boxy design, unlabelled controls in unusual places, and a lil’ trunk.
Funny how they got a private suck in at Elwood Engel making Imperials look like the previous years Lincolns. I’ve read comments before that criticized the late-50’s hold-over windshield in the Imperial and how it doesn’t look good versus the rest of the assets. I always thought it looked fine before, but watching it on the same page as the Lincoln and Caddy, I can now see how it looks dated.
so they say the rolls is almost silent and the rail is super sleek , the brakes are amazing and its put together with the finest materials but they dont like it and say its the most overated car! WTF!
Thomas, actually, they didn’t say the Rolls had a super-smooth rail.
Many thanks for this precious article ! It should be listed right at the top of any specialized list of test drives. In those good old days (when these cars were fresh and there were NO speed boundaries in Europe), I have driven each of them (Imperial Le Baron, not the Crown). Driving conditions are different in Europe compared to North America, so my view may be somewhat contorted. My uncle (my dad’s brother) had a RR SC-III, lovely majestic lump of machinery, excellent visibility, incredible finish and quality, total dignity even when driving utter blast. Will never leave behind. The thing was fairly prompt in reality and, seated high above the other puny European cars on the road, you indeed had the feeling to predominate. Another uncle (my mum’s brother) had a “Grosser 600” (as they called it), I drove it utter blast across Europe many times, so sleek and effortless to drive, an absolute rocket with a fabulus suspension making you feel more convenient than in any other car, in total muffle. It runs and runs and runs without ever getting tired at any speed. You totally leave behind the size and the weight of the car. My aunt (my mum’s sister) had a Lincoln Continental 4-door Convertible (with those lovely “suicide doors”), which I later bought from her. Gorgeous well-finished car, it moves you calmly from A to B with good road holding for those days, but far from sporty. The electrical wiring system was a agony in the neck, repairs costed an absolute fortune. The Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham was a unspoiled delight, my best friend’s father had one fitted with crimson leather interior, by far the most amazing of all by its muffle and its convenience and when driving not too prompt, but boy, what a gas guzzler ! Last but not least the Mark-X Jag, a big animal when driving, with almost the luxury of a Rolls, almost the spectacle of the “Grosser 600”, it would drive swifter than the Cadillac, the Lincoln and the Imperial – something which on a long open up, say from Paris to Monte Carlo, would be most welcome and pleasurable. The three US luxury cars would be much, yes much slower on the same distance and gobble much more gas, making the journey less relieving. In spite of their size, they would be more convenient in city traffic (yes, even in Paris !) … perhaps because the smaller cars would be too startled to run into them. In those days, perhaps for that reason, US luxury cars were very fashionable in Switzerland and many other European countries, perhaps because they were so totally reliable to drive and when chauffeur-driven, their size didn’t truly matter. My choice ? Each of them, but for different reasons. The one thousand nine hundred sixty six Fleetwood for convenience. The Mercedes six hundred for long distance driving. The one thousand nine hundred sixty two Le Baron for excentricty, the Rolls for the evening, the Lincoln … I am not sure if there would be another reason than just cruise around, the Mark-X …. mmm, perhaps I choose its more stately predecessor the Mark-IX or a more sporty E-type.
Paul, but Car & Driver listed “curb weight” of that ’65 Cadillac Fleetwood at Four,600 lbs. Maybe they meant shipping weight (for all the cars listed)?
If only Car and Driver would give detailed tests and in depth research today. Engine weights? Sure, there were some errors, especially confusing hydraulic with vacuum operation on some of the cars, but there was still lots of info you would never hear about today. And spectacle results seem to be more fair. Interesting the Lincoln was seven hundred lbs stronger then the Cadillac but got three more MPG. The Cadillac was the best looking of the bunch, in my opinion. The Rolls had drum brakes, but they were determined to be the best of the bunch. Interesting. That fastback conversion for the Corvair is pretty tacky looking. I did notice it comes with a ‘Lucas Flame Thrower’. I wonder if that’s a James Bond device, or some kind of an ignition ‘upgrade’. Either way, it most likely didn’t work for very long. Thanks for reprinting this old C/D test, it was a joy read.
Lucas Flamethrower – a high candlepower high-beam headlight. Popular after-market with the tweedy sports car set. They were marketed in the days before halogen headlights. John Fitch included them as part of the Fitch Sprint package for Corvairs.
Thank you! As soon as you mentioned the headlamps I remembered that term from way back.
I recall a several-way test of subcompacts a few years ago, in which C+D rated the Chevy Sonic turbo a close 2nd behind the Honda Fit, marking the Chevy down for an engine that wasn’t as lithe as the Honda’s. It required a deep dig into the (online-only) expanded test result chart to detect that the test Fit had over one thousand miles on it while the Sonic was first-tankful taut…maybe someone on the senior staff with a long memory was getting payback for the ringer launch X-bodies?
Terrific article that gives you a taste of times past. The description of the Rolls is a dose of reality if you do any explore of Rolls Royce cars from this time period.
In the lead photo, the Cadillac stands out as the modern, serious, grown up car. No pretense, simply the practical choice of the successful man in 1965. With improved shocks, tires and a decent set of disc brakes it shows up that it would have been the undisputed “Standard of the World” in 1965. Those are pretty plain tweaks, it is unfortunate that Cadillac didn’t head these criticisms swifter. That dated looking Mercedes has most of the ingredients of a major headache for Cadillac that was just a handful of years away from setting in.
My favourites of the six luxury cars are the Mercedes-Benz 500, the Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham, and the Chrysler Imperial Le Baron.
You know, I’ve written and edited slew of CC posts, but this is the only one that causes such an emotional reaction within me, to the point of even tearing up a little. Why? I have no idea. Maybe it’s observing an American luxury car equal to anything else the world has to suggest. Or maybe through the prism of hindsight, I’m just romanticizing the mid-sixties. Either way, thanks for reposting this, Paul.
Jay Leno has such enthusiasm for his six hundred that it is contagious. And I get that if money is no object, I certainly see the appeal of the 600. And I think it is beautiful. And I would love to have one, but I have never driven one or wielded one.
But Carmine is right. The Cadillac should win the test based on luxury alone. And especially with cost added in. Basically, if you had added disc brakes to the Cadillac, they would have been hard pressed to find a flaw.
That is a complaint I have of Top Gear. Jeremy Clarkson claims all American cars are crap. And yes, my Mustang is certainly no Porsche Boxster and the interior controls are cheap. But display me another car for 17,000 pounds that even comes close to the Mustang. Or the Challenger. Or the Camaro. For the cost, they are amazing compared to the competition.
Also, Leno mentioned that the Big’s hydraulic power windows include a valve with a $15k replacement cost. I would bet that if a window motor went on a ’65 Caddy, you could make one from any PW-equipped GM car from the next thirty years work in it for the (junkyard) parts cost of a deluxe burger.
This article is one of the reasons my Father (and later his son) had a continuous subscription to “Car & Driver” for over forty years.
David E. Davis left his unique “mark” on this magazine during his long tenure(s) there.
The “inwards joke” during this time period was that the ultra-rich kept an always reliable Cadillac around for the many times when their Rolls-Royce would not begin..errrrrr…I mean…”fail to proceed”.
An un-mentioned (in the article) ‘feature’ of the Rolls mechanical-servo braking system was that while it may have been beautiful for stopping the car from highway speeds, it didn’t actually engage very well unless the car was MOVING. Attempt parallel-parking a ’65 Rolls. You can’t, ’cause the servo isn’t moving enough, the car has to stir something like twice it’s length before it engages.
Then again, if you’ve got a Rolls, you’ve got a Chauffeur, too, no? (And I’d not realized the pricing differences in these cars – $20,500 for a Mercedes six hundred is truly, truly mind-boggling! The 1960s were not like today in providing shocking pay-scales for the upper classes – there weren’t that many people who ever could have afforded one).
I think this comparison truly shows why Cadillac was/is no longer the “Standard of the World”. To be the “Standard…” it should excel in style (which it does), engineering (which the Mercedes does) and interior/exterior quality (which it does not). Cadillac’s engine is very good as is the Rolls’s engine. Mercedes has the highest score, with Cadillac 2nd. However, Mercedes and Rolls have top scores in quality control, with Cadillac third place (42 out of 50). I feel that Cadillac is just not fairly world class. Before World War Two I think the upper end of the Cadillac line (Fleetwood 75, 80’s and the 90) were world class.
I recall those Car and Driver apples-to-oranges comparisons, pretending the cars tested were in the same class, readily available to practically any buyers…..which cars such as M-B 600, R-R Silver Cloud and even the Jaguar were well beyond the financial capabilities of the majority of even the Cadillac/Lincoln/Imperial customers. C&D always selected the European cars a oh-so-superior. Well, they should have been for the large price premium to own one.
For the general upper end of the American middle-class, the Cadillac was the best all-around car for the money; Lincoln and Imperial slightly less so perhaps for lower resale value. Any one of these three was still very much an aspirational car for most buyers, and something they were able to eventually afford and love as a well-kept used car…..which was uncommonly the case with the European ‘competitors’.
The Jaguar was almost the cheapest car in the test, strike out only by the Imperial. Had Cadillac still been making the Eldorado Brougham (which cost well over $20,000 to build in the late 50’s) it would have been the most expensive car in the test.
However, getting to the point, good value for the money does not make a car “The Standard of the World” for luxury cars. I don’t know what Mercedes was attempting to do the the 600, but they only produced about one hundred per year. Compared with the Rolls Royce Phantom’s, this would have been a lot, and at bargain price.
Fasinating read. The Jaguar caught my eye until all those shortcomings popped up. Out of curiosity, I determined to look at current values for the group introduced. The Imperial and Lincoln are worth a duo thousand more today than when fresh. The Cadillac and Jaguar are worth about twice as much. Then things get crazy… It would take $70,000 to buy that Mercedes, and $100,000 for the Rolls Royce today. My takeaway? You pay for the name with the Rolls, the Mercedes is likely every bit as good as everyone said back then, and I find the Lincoln very appealing all of a unexpected…
A hundred grand is only the embarking point when it comes to 600’s. And it would cost a hundred more to just get it in order. Or twohundred more. There are cheaper ones to be had, and there are reasons they are cheaper. As there are reasons perhaps it’s a better alternative to look for one of the indeed nice ones to begin with.
And perhaps a six hundred isn’t even a viable option without unlimited amounts of money? It indeed is the car for those where money is of no object. And if it isn’t of no object, this car isn’t for you. When even Jay Leno says upkeep is “crazy expensive” you know shit is real.
However I love the car to death, and I could most likely kill for the chance to own one, I wouldn’t truly wanna be stuck with one that needed a lot of repair and not being able afford to have it motionless. The six hundred is an indulgence, and has to be to treated as such.
Like this car: for sale at one hundred sixty five grand. Cost of restoration since 2006: one hundred eighty five grand. That are the kind of non-recoverable costs involved.
From what I understand the Mercedes six hundred is never truly ” in order “, something will almost certainly break while you are fixing something else.
This was from a time just two years before I would detect this type of car magazine. Up until about one thousand nine hundred sixty seven my “library” would consist of magazines like HOT ROD.
You mention prejudices:
Over the years the British magazine CAR would do similar tests like this one, but almost always European brands of cars as the American products were considered to be massively un-competitive, and ninety nine times out of one hundred Jaguar won the test. If not Jaguar, then BMW, but almost never Mercedes.
Being a Ford fan, no matter what the test results, I would have voted with my dollars and gone with the Lincoln…even however the basic design, was by then, several years old. The Cadillac Shows up to closely rival the Mercedes….but it borders on too flashy for a luxury car. The Jaguar looks like a whale on wheels, on the outside. The Lincoln just seems to hit all the right marks (no pun intended).
I almost left behind the Imperial…..and that’s Chrysler’s largest problem: a forgettable car.
It’s fairly telling to see how slow these 60’s total size cars were with the quickest 0-60 car being the 9.Two 2nd Cadillac. It’s interesting to put into perspective that many of the 70’s emission smogged cars weren’t truly that much slower than there 60’s counterparts despite being down so much on the power ratings. A ideal example being my uncles one thousand nine hundred sixty five Cutlass with a three hundred thirty Olds Ultra high compression Jetfire V8 engine and three hundred twenty HP versus his one thousand nine hundred seventy four Cutlass with a Rocket three hundred fifty Four BBL V8 that only made one hundred eighty horses. Now the one thousand nine hundred sixty five car was indeed quicker but not almost as much as the power ratings would infer. Keep in mind also that 70-80 of this hp difference was in how they were rated. The old “gross’ rating differed from the “net” mainly in how it was averaged out and the accessories that were hooked up when tested.
Another example is a one thousand nine hundred seventy nine Trans Am with the two hundred twenty HP four hundred tied to a four speed stick that timed out at 6.7 seconds 0-60 which was quicker than most 60’s so called muscle cars bar the odd four hundred fifty five GS Buick or yenko F-body etc. If I was to speak with an older car enthusiast he would go on and on how race car prompt all those 60’s muscle cars were even however most were severely handicapped by lousy tires, brakes, steering and suspensions. As they say the memory often cheats.
Hmmmm……I drove several late one thousand nine hundred seventy Trans Ams. I don’t recall any of them doing zero to sixty in 6.7 seconds in “stock” condition.
Perhaps the test car had been “strongly breathed on” by a co-operative car dealer?
I found a Car&Driver road test online for the downsized seventy eight Deville. 0-60 is Ten.6 seconds, standing quarter mile is Eighteen.Two [email protected] MPH. 0-80 is Legitimate.Five sec. A one thousand nine hundred sixty five Deville convertible would do the standing quarter in 17.Two sec@82 MPH. Gross horsepower did not require the engine to have a cooling system, harass system or air filter. What we know is “advertised pony power”, which may have been somewhat different from the actual horsepower. For example, the Buick four hundred thirty CID engine is rated @360 HP, then the one thousand nine hundred seventy 455 is rated @370 HP. One would have expected about three hundred eighty HP.