Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know it. I have always been a fan of anything from the early 70s, especially cars. My first car was a 1972 Cadillac and I have always had a soft spot for them, as well as other old cars - even 50s-60s models.
It is easy to get hooked on cars of that era(s). One thing for sure, you won't have trouble finding it in a parking lot filled with cookie-cutter cars!
Quote:
In reply to the original topic - I like the new Cadillac CTS-V, but I like the DTS and Escalade ESV better! I love that huge SUV!
Yeah, I like the DTS better than the CTS mainly because it is bigger.
However, it would be great if Cadillac would build the traditional type of Cadillacs like they used to. (Meaning loooooong!)
I think as long as they fit into the topic there is not an issue. I think its informative and comparisons are important between cars.
No offense here guys, but how is a 1969 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham comparable to the CTS-V in this thread - other than the badge.
This thread is about a modern, mid-sized, luxury performance car, so I'd rather expect comparisons to Audi RS4, BMW M3, C63 AMG, S-Type R's, Lexus IS-F and that kind.
Oh well, since this thread is somehow off track now I go and read somwhere else then.
No offense here guys, but how is a 1969 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham comparable to the CTS-V in this thread - other than the badge.
This thread is about a modern, mid-sized, luxury performance car, so I'd rather expect comparisons to Audi RS4, BMW M3, C63 AMG, S-Type R's, Lexus IS-F and that kind.
Oh well, since this thread is somehow off track now I go and read somwhere else then.
As you mentioned... not much in common except the Cadillac name.
However, classic Cadillacs were mentioned when comments such as these appeared:
(By Hungry For Cheese) "I prefer a quiet ride like a cloud."
(By Booboy) [The CTS] "Best-looking Caddy to ever roll out."
Since Cadillac has had a long history behind it, it is only natural to compare with previous ones.
Yeah...I really like the 91-96 Caprice, 95-96 Impala SS and the 95-96 Fleetwood
And leave out the '93 and '94 Fleetwood?! Shame on you! JK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
We get it already, OK? We know you think even today's big cars aren't big by your standards, because you've said so over and over already. But we were talking about by TODAY'S standards. Got it? Can't we ever talk about something without gratuitous and repeated references to cars of the 60s and 70s? Jesus flippin' Christ.
I think its very important to have a reference of "todays standards". Calling something big or small is a pretty relative statement. 60s and 70s cars paved the way for what we have today and to be intentionally ignorant of how cars arrived at what they are today is just stupid.
I realize that the word "compact" and "mid-sized" has changed a lot since the 1960s, but I can't see any car which is less than about 195-196 inches long as "mid-sized."
And certainly not a car under 190 inches in length. A mid-1960s Plymouth Valiant was 188 inches long; those were definitely classified as a "compact" (at least back in the '60s).
In the '60s, "mid-sized" meant a car with a wheelbase between 112 and 118 inches and an overall length roughly of 197 to 207 inches.
If you think a Cadillac CTS is a "big boy," what would consider the size of my cars to be? (1969 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham, 228.5"; 1976 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, 252.2"; 1995 Lincoln Town Car, 218.9".)
I'll call them... super XL pimpmobiles . hey thats cool if it's your thing, but I prefer them smaller. So back to the original question, I think the CTS-V would be a lot cooler if it was a bit smaller. Otherwise, besides the Corvette, it's about the only example of a full-on competitive effort from GM and I think that's great (and hopefully that will rub off on whatever's left of them come year end)
The last one is a 1955 Eldorado Convertible. Very rare!
OUCH . . . only a few years off. I guess that's where the Rear End for the 58's originated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
It is easy to get hooked on cars of that era(s). One thing for sure, you won't have trouble finding it in a parking lot filled with cookie-cutter cars!
Boy, ain't that the truth, Fleet!
I've often wondered what it is like to find your $85K plus Mercedes parked next to an "identical twin" $20K or less Nissan or Toyota.
Please do. I remember seeing a couple of those when I was a kid. Post a photo of one with the door open.
You are insusceptible to my irony... that is unfair.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. hey thats cool if it's your thing, but I prefer them smaller. So back to the original question, I think the CTS-V would be a lot cooler if it was a bit smaller. Otherwise, besides the Corvette, it's about the only example of a full-on competitive effort from GM and I think that's great (and hopefully that will rub off on whatever's left of them come year end)
! 
