Comments: 1-15, 16-19
Since purchasing the car I have had to replace the following parts to make it roadworthy:
Power steering pressure hose.
Alternator.
Battery.
Muffler and resonator.
Lots of soap, polish and scrub brushes.
My wife bought this car for me as a retirement present for 20 years in the US Navy, to drive cross country this fall, and to display this summer in the local shows. There will be plenty of Camaros and Mustangs, but very few Cads!
This car was extremely dirty when I bought it after years of storage, but has cleaned up incredibly well. The red metallic paint and white leather interior look almost brand new, and the car looks to be in fantastic shape for any car, let alone one 29 years old.
For the barca-cruiser it is, handling is quite good. If you know how the behemoths of the 70's handle, and have the nerve to drive them hard, they can handle surprising well. It's a lot of fun to see the looks of your passengers as you drive a 5000+ pound brick like a sports car. A lot of people think these cars are cement blocks, but the suspension is quite sporty while being soft and comfortable. It can be driven like it's on rails if you hold on tight and pucker up enough.
The 502 big block needs a little help. In a matter of 5 years of production, this engine's output was almost halved by choking it with emission controls. An engine this big should be able to twist the tires off the rims. Once I get it cleaned up and going well, I am going to address this problem with either modern high performance parts, or donor parts from an earlier engine.
This is truly the last of the real road crushers. In 77 all manufacturers started to shrink their cars or replace their big-car model lines. It is the final hurrah for a time we will not see again.
If you mean a time when most cars were weak-kneed, overweight, ill-handling, overstyled and under-engineered...well, nobody really wants to see that time again anyway.
The orginal poster was right about 70's cars.
They were great drivers if you had a guts to run them to their potential. A 16 yr old could not climb in one and make it drive to its potential...
70's cars were awesome, no matter what anyone says.
I test drove a '76 Coupe De Ville today with only 50,000 miles just for fun. I love the '70's land boats, but never had the pleasure of driving one (I'm 23). I drive a Buick Park Avenue and the Cadillac was very overwhelming to maneuver in comparison! Visibility was not the greatest and the sheer dimensions of the car coupled with no steering feel made it a real chore to drive in tight situations. I didn't feel comfortable taking my eyes off the road for a second! The turning radius seemed to be somewhere close to the length of my Buick. I wouldn't want to have to park this car let alone find a place big enough to park it.
While driving a car this big would take some getting used to, I would love to have the opportunity to buy a new car like this. I agree with the commenter and think it is sad that American cars have shrunk so much over the last 32 years. I won't even mention the invisible styling of most modern cars. Sigh. Oh well, I guess all good things must come to an end, and cars like these just don't fit into a world with $4 gasoline. I really hate to think what the automotive world will have to offer in another 10 years.
So, to the above comment, by your description: overwhelming to maneuver, no steering feel, poor visibility, and huge turning radius. You don't mention the truly dreadful fuel consumption.
Yet, you would want to buy a car like this new?? Um, WHY??
A couple of points need to be clarified here.
First, the power output was not "halved" by emissions controls as many people believe. The main culprit in the loss of power came from lowering the compression ratios.
What made the power figures look even worse was the way in which the figures were quoted from about 1972 on. A 1971 500CID Eldorado with a 10.5 to 1 compression was quoted at 400hp. This figure was given using a bare-bones block with a free exhaust at the flywheel. Post 1972 outputs were quoted also at the flywheel, but with the reduced (8.5 or 8.25 to 1) compression AND all auxiliary components - generator, water pump, a/c etc etc plus a restricted exhaust. In other words, the engine was tested as it would be installed in the car. I don't think I need to tell anyone here that there's a lot of "auxiliary components" in a Cadillac!! Professional opinion actually puts the real-world power loss at around 35hp. But peak power is almost superfluous in these cars anyway, they're a torque-monster, not a 10,000RPM eardrum-bashing VTEC or rotary.
Second, to the guy who made the comment about them being under-engineered - they're still kickin' after 30-plus years. Where's the "under-engineering" in that?!?
9:04 O.K., so maybe I wouldn't want the car to be exactly like this. However, I wish you could still buy a car with this comfort level, size, and style. So the handling and a few other things could be modified. That's the diference 32 years of engineering makes. Overall though this car has a lot of things going for it that the modern luxury cars can't touch. Electronic gizmos are only good for so much. In my book that is only one of the many elements that make a true luxury car. Modern luxury cars retain few of them.
Would you care to elaborate on what those "elements" are? Metal bumpers? A carburetor? An AM-eight track stereo radio?
What, exactly, are the elements that this car has that would be desirable on a modern luxury car, but which are missing? Please enlighten us. Sheer size and weight are not requirements for a luxury car.
Yes they are :-)
Really, well then, guess there is nothing that is built now that qualifies as a luxury car, according to your definition.
Better alert the manufacturers of this important information.
Yes there are three: Ford Crown Victoria, Mercury Grand Marquis, and Lincoln Town Car. And remember Japanese garbage never counts as a luxury car! EVER!!!
Oh yes, the Crown Vics and Grand Marquis are "luxury" cars.
That's why you see so many of them as police cars and taxis, don'cha know?
They're the only cars that can hold up to that abuse, and still run smoothly at over 100,000 miles. Try that with a new front-wheel-drive car and see how long it lasts.
So when you can't rebut, you just change the argument? Now we're not talking about luxury car attributes, but durability? Well.
I had a '73 Coupe De Ville. The handling was great, and the outward visibility was outstanding, with a low dash and very high 'greenhouse'. Wonderfully comfortable car. That one had the 472 version of the fine Cadillac v8, and it had adequate power. It only got around 8-10 mpg, but you have to remember that the standard of living of the ordinary American was much, much higher when these cars were made. Now we have to drive around in horrible little front wheel drive lightweights - dangerous and unpleasant, but what can you do when you're poor?
I own a 76 Coupe DeVille and have driven numerous modern luxury cars, and I cannot compare a single one to mine.
The suspension in the 76 is incredible; the only car I know that can be so comfortable and handle so well.
If you cannot afford gas, then I can see a problem, but if you don't have a long commute or have a decent amount of money, there is no better car on the road.
Thirty years down the road, I doubt any car from the 90's or early 2000's will be seen, but I am willing to bet that this car still will be, just because it is built so much better.