1973: Cadillac, Lincoln, Imperial (Chrysler) (seats, mileage, engine, Chevrolet)

[JTraik]

Originally Posted by stanman13

Funny that the Sedan DeVille is not a sedan, but a four-door hardtop (no post). Anyway, I'd take that one, although the Continental is a close second.

The hardtops still carry a "Sedan Deville" emblem on them, but you are right. Hardtops were way more popular than the sedans... I really like having the hardtop, with all the windows down its like your in a rolling, luxurious gazebo.... its all nice and open.

[Tennesseestorm]

Originally Posted by roosevelt

All three of these cars were buckets of bolts, all trying to come apart. They were impossible body wise, the trim inside deteriorated fast and very difficult to work on.

Thats an interesting statement. Have you ever owned any of these cars? Not to sound rude or coy, I have a totally different view and experience of them.

Not sure about the Imperial, but I have owned one of those Cadillacs, three of the Lincolns and several other early 70s GM cars (still have two) and that was not the case with any of mine. Only issue is that the 76 Town Car we had did have some power window issues and the door pull came loose on it, but the others were fine.

You are right about the pre-58 Caddys. Grandpa has a 55' Cadillac and its a fine car.

[Mopac1980]

Even though 1973 had some of the best looking luxury cars in automotive history I only wish they didn't have the emissions control devices and them having higher compression powered motors

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by Mopac1980

Even though 1973 had some of the best looking luxury cars in automotive history I only wish they didn't have the emissions control devices and them having higher compression powered motors

Yeah, too bad that happened. If those emission devices didn't appear until 1977 or so, there would have been a lot of choice years for the truly powerful U.S. luxury cars.

But the big engines they had did produce a decent amount of torque. Even a smog-emissions equipped '73 Cadillac and Lincoln could run mid-17 sec 1/4 miles. Not as quick as the mid-16s of the late-'60s, but not bad for a smog-engine '73 weighing over 5,000 lbs and highway gearing.

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by roosevelt

All three of these cars were buckets of bolts, all trying to come apart. They were impossible body wise, the trim inside deteriorated fast and very difficult to work on. The 50's were much better quality until the big drop in height about 1958. Before 1958 there was nothing like a Cadillac.

I agree that they were built better in the '50s, but the '70s cars were better built than the '80s cars! And, the '70s U.S. luxury cars had well-built engines and transmissions. That, for me, is more important than the trim.

Also, the quality for many U.S. cars were quite good in the mid-'60s. Cadillacs had very good quality up to 1970 and especially up to 1966. The '67-'70 interiors were also good but had more plastic. Incidentally, the last year for real wood in the interior for Cadillacs was 1969, until it reappeared in the mid-'80s.

[Mopac1980]

Originally Posted by Fleet

Yeah, too bad that happened. If those emission devices didn't appear until 1977 or so, there would have been a lot of choice years for the truly powerful U.S. luxury cars.

But the big engines they had did produce a decent amount of torque. Even a smog-emissions equipped '73 Cadillac and Lincoln could run mid-17 sec 1/4 miles. Not as quick as the mid-16s of the late-'60s, but not bad for a smog-engine '73 weighing over 5,000 lbs and highway gearing.

I always thought they were slower the quarter mile times in the 17 secong range, I'm glad to hear the torque was able to help move these cars with good but not great performance, I once read somewhere that a 1974 Lincoln Continental 4 door has better acceleration than a 1968 Lincoln Continental as far as the 0-60mph times which really surprised me, it's a shame they've had to downsize these beautiful cars by the end of the 1970s.

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by Mopac1980

I always thought they were slower the quarter mile times in the 17 secong range, I'm glad to hear the torque was able to help move these cars with good but not great performance, I once read somewhere that a 1974 Lincoln Continental 4 door has better acceleration than a 1968 Lincoln Continental as far as the 0-60mph times which really surprised me, it's a shame they've had to downsize these beautiful cars by the end of the 1970s.

Yeah, not bad acceleration for what they were. And they had highway gears which really hurts low-to-mid range acceleration. And for the typical owner, they didn't buy them to drag race!

As for 0-60 mph, it was usually in the 9s for the '68-'75 Lincolns. From memory, Motor Trend's '69 Lincoln Continental ran 9.2 secs for 0-60 and a Road Test magazine Lincoln (May, 1975) ran 9.5 secs.
But the '60s Lincolns would easily take the old ones in a 1/4 mile run. Low-to-mid 16s for a '68-'70 and mid-17s for '74-'75.

The '68 Mark III was lighter than the Continentals and could run 0-60 in the high 8s with low, low 16s for the 1/4 mile.

[stanman13]

I agree, also. There are beautiful cars fom every era. You must take them within the context of the times. Some have beauty that transcends time.

[sean sean sean sean]

Tennessee, these threads are actually my favorite posts on the Automotive forum so PLEASE KEEP THEM COMING!

[Tennesseestorm]

Originally Posted by sean sean sean sean

Tennessee, these threads are actually my favorite posts on the Automotive forum so PLEASE KEEP THEM COMING!

Thanks! I will.