1963-1964 Cadillacs

parm · June 2010

Well, it's not a GOLD gold. Even though this one has a white roof (which I'd consider doing too), you get the idea.

Sierra Gold '64 Coupe Deville

isellhondas · June 2010

I agree about the low miles.

I've probably told this story before.

Back in 1982, my best friend's dad bought the strangest little truck I had ever seen!

A new Dodge Rampage. I remember walking around it shaking my head thing how uselass this tiny little truck could be. It was so odd and unique I found myself liking it!

So, about five years ago the old man (age 94 now and still driving) decided it was time to let it go. For 2000.00, it was mine! Another 500.00 to get it trucked from California to Washington State.

21,000 original miles! It was the deluxe model with a pristine body and interior. Five speed. Everything origianl including the tires. Silver paint was as dull as the sidewalk in front of our house.

The tires still had lots of tread but were rock hard!

Let's see....On the way back from getting new tires it blew a rear wheel cylinder.

Of course, the rear linings were soaked and had to be replaced. In the year I had it I didn't drive it much. The nylon shift linkage busings fell apart, it blew a rear axle seal which ruined the linings again. It had an assortment of engine oil leaks.

But, it ran well, the A/C blew cold and it wasn't a bad little truck.

When a body shop gave me a 3500.00 estmate to repaint it the same color I decided to sell it with 24,000 miles.

I think it wold have been in better shape if it had been a daily driven truck with 100,000 miles!

Mr_Shiftright · June 2010

Here's a comp although we don't know final selling price. It was listed at $16K b/o, so we could probably assume 10-15% less than that. Low miles, original, looks very nice and had a lot of mechanical rejuvenation.

http://cars-on-line.com/42593.html

I'm still thinkin' that no matter how nice these cars are, one really has to start acting sober at about $12,5K

isellhondas · June 2010

OK, not the gold I was thinking about.

A buddy took a liking to Cadillac Sevilles a few years back. The ones that were built from 1975-1979. He owned several of them. The nicest one of them all was a GOLD one! I mean Trumpet Gold with (of course) a white vinyl top.

When he got tired of it, he had a tough time. People would pull up to his house, see the rear end of it in the garage and take off.

It's not the softer gold in those photos.

Still I perfer the beige and I'm dead against color changes for a number of reasons.

But, that's me.

parm · June 2010

I'm very dubious of club member evaluations. They are GREAT for authentication but generally not very good at knowing market value. They tend to overvalue their cars considerably, so I'd rely on them for knowing what is "correct" but not for what to pay. Certainly they are a good tool in your toolbox. Agreed. We're saying the same thing. You just said it more eloquently.

If this car had something ridiculous like 5K to 10K miles, I'd agree with your low-mileage vs. value quandry. But, I don't consider 49K to be ultra-low mileage. To me, that's a well-preserved car that's worth paying extra for. But, not something worthy of a museum piece. Let's face it, these cars don't get driven that much anyway - maybe 1,500 per year? At that rate, I could drive it for 10 years and the odometer would read only 65K and in 2020 that would still be considered low mileage. Not a bad situation.

isellhondas · June 2010

Funny, he can replace a heat riser because he wanted his Cadillac to be "near perfect" but for some reason he couldn't "address" the problem with the A/C?

I wonder why? :sick:

I think white is a great color on those. not too hot on the red interior though.

parm · June 2010

Yeah, that's an old ad. That car sold about a year ago. But, you're right, that's a good comp - assuming the condition of this '64 CDV in Burbank is as good.

isellhondas · June 2010

Considering that's a little over 1000 miles a year, that's pretty "ultra" low mileage, wouldn't you think?

I would expect the same kind of replacements I had with that Rampage. Gaskets, seals etc. Not bad once it's done.

parm · June 2010

Yeah, Sierra Gold is pretty subtle. Rather classy in my opinion. Hey, you don't think I'd do something stupid, do you??? :P (don't answer that)

parm · June 2010

Good thoughts on the seals/gaskets, etc. I think once I find out a bit more about this car's history, it will help answer that question. Supposedly the shop trying to sell it has gone over the car mechanically - though I know the problems you're referring to don't always provide any warning until they implode. While I think it would be kind of a romantic road trip to drive a collector car from California back to Indiana, the thought of being stranded on the side of an Arizona highway (even with my AAA membership) makes me think that transporting it back here in an enclosed carrier (ie., Reliable, etc.) might be a wise investment (probably around $2K?).

Mr_Shiftright · June 2010

No way you want to drive it. It doesn't have to be a closed carrier. This is not a Duesenberg! :shades: They take brand new Porsches on open carriers.

isellhondas · June 2010

Yeah, I think they charge something like triple to ship enclosed.

Waste of money. The car get's dirty. Big deal!

" Gone over the car mechanically" can mean a lot of different things to different people. Just expect the things I mentioned.. Gaskets,seals, rubber parts etc.

Those were great engines and transmission. Expect maybe some front end bushings, lower ball joints etc. If those had a nylon timing gear (?) it would be pretty brittle by now. I wold probably have someone pull the front cover and replace the timing chain and gears and maybe the water pump if it's questionable.

Not trying to scare you, just thinking outloud.

When I bought the Rampage, I thought about flying down and driving it up here.

It would have awakened from it's slumber and pushed 1000 miles.

I'm glad I thought otherwise. Those 25 year old tires would have blown along with those wheel cylinders and who knows what else. Nothing like getting stranded by the side of I-5 15 miles south of Corning CA! (Been there)

parm · June 2010

Was be-bopping around Hemmings and found this: 1962 Coupe Deville The good news is it's in Michigan and only about 5 hours away. Plus, it has only 45K miles and the off-white color on this body style really works for me. The bad news is this car lacks factory A/C. In fact, it's rather oddly optioned. It has factory cruise control (pretty rare for a '62 non-Fleetwood, trust me), but lacks A/C. Go figure. Last, but certainly not least, this one is being offered by a dealer with an asking price of $17,500. Good Lord! That's stupid money for a non factory A/C car. For that kind of money, you should also get a free lobotomy. Actually, if you pay that much, one should be required! :confuse:

Mechanically, I'd much rather have a '64 CDV. In 1962, the 390 motor was quite the lump and not the smaller, refined one that came along in 1963. And, naturally, the transmission is the lesser hydramatic flavor. Then again, I've always liked the 1962 styling.

If you could get this for around $9,500, then not having A/C "might" make sense. Or, am I too strong? Anybody know the cost for a professionally installed Vintage Air system?

isellhondas · June 2010

When I think Michigan I think rust and you DO NOT want a rust bucket even if it's been "fixed". I'm sure you already know that.

Yes, way too much money. Cruise control was VERY rare in those days and I wouldn't care one way or the other since I rarely use the cruise on our modern cars.

I'm not a big fan of "Mickey Mouse" air condition but I would gess around 2000.00.

And I didn't realize the 1963's had a one year only engine!

uplanderguy · June 2010

For styling alone, and not taking mechanical advantages/disadvantages into the equation, I like the '62 better than a '63 or '64. But I like the '65 best of all.

One pet peeve I have is when a very nice car (like this '62) has had an aftermarket body side molding slapped down the side of it. The question is, will it come off without any paint damage? A second pet peeve is when an owner or shop does a beautiful paint job in an original color, then is too lazy to figure out where the nameplates and emblems go. That drives me worse than orange peel in a paint job; I can see emblems in the wrong place a block away!

Bill

parm · June 2010

Perhaps I'm missing something here. An enclosed carrier would protect a car from damage due to rocks flying up and other road hazards. Plus, security is an issue too. It's pretty tough to vandalize a car when it's inside a truck. Yeah, yeah - the carrier's insurance "should" cover the subsequent repairs, but to who's satisfaction? I'm all about paying a little extra in order to reduce my "hassle factor".

parm · June 2010

For 1963, the 390 was put on a diet, so to speak. It came in a bit smaller package compared to previous years. And, it wasn't a one-year only engine. In 1964, the Series 62's got the same 390/tranny combo. You had to step up to the Deville or Fleetwood to get the 429 with the TH trans.

parm · June 2010

Yeah, I was kind of thinking in the range of $2,000 for a Vintage Air system too. BTW, I'm not talking about one of those single A/C lumps that hang down from the bottom of the dashboard (think 1965-66 Mustangs). The Vintage Air brand A/C systems I've seen look pretty slick, actually. They have multiple vents. You see Vintage Air in a lot of custom street rods. Their set up looks as near to factory as you can get. Perhaps others do too, but Vintage Air is the one I'm familiar with.

isellhondas · June 2010

Well, I have seen, literally, thousands upon thousands of cars new and used delivered to our store on open trucks and I have yet to see one that was damaged.

They are up too high for flying rocks for one thing.

But, hey, it's your money!

isellhondas · June 2010

Oh, I've seen vintage Air installations and they are OK.

They typically only recirculate the air that is inside the car instead of bringing in fresh air.

I'll take a factory unit if I can get one.

parm · June 2010

Earlier, I mentioned that Cadillac redesigned the 390 motor for 1963. But, my explanation was pretty lame. So, in case anyone is interested (and I know you ALL are :P ), here's a more complete description of the 1963 390 motor.

The 1963 390 was a totally redesigned engine compared to the 62 and earlier 390's. It was 50+ lbs lighter, engine accessories including the distributor was moved to the front and used a new aluminum engine cover that incorporated the oil pump, the length and height were both shortened, they switched to a hollow-cast crank and switched to an alternator-rectifier charging system. The bore, stroke and horsepower (325) were the same as the 62 390 however this was a lighter, more agile 390 than the old design.

isellhondas · June 2010

Makes one wonder why they would bother redesigning an engine and only using it for one year? Also have to wonder why they would have used two different engines in the '64's?

andre1969 · June 2010

This is just a guess, but the decision to redesign the 390 was probably made a couple years before, when the industry was still recovering from a recession, and there was a momentary shift towards smaller, lighter cars. At the time, they probably thought it good enough to just improve the design of the engine, rather than come out with a bigger one. However, by 1964, size and power were all the rage again, so they reacted by boring and stroking it. In 1964 Lincoln came standard with a 430, with a 450 optional (I forget when the 462 came out), and Imperial had a 413. Even lesser cars like a Chrysler New Yorker, Olds 98, or Buick Electra were trotting around with engines bigger than the 390.

So, even if the 390 was a great engine and could outperform those other cars, often the only thing the public looked at were the cubic inches and the advertised hp, so Cadillac probably HAD to make the engine bigger!

isellhondas · June 2010

That's probably a accurate portrayal of what happened.

Then Cadillac REALLY went overboard with the 500 Cubic Inch engines they put in the Eldorados!

The days of excess that saw a extreme reversal in the years to come.

Mr_Shiftright · June 2010

Except that that 500 cid engine was a cow on tranquilizers. :P

isellhondas · June 2010

And things went downhill from that point.

The newly imposed emission requirements that hit in about 1971 forced Cadillac (and everyone else) into choking down their engines to point they would barely run.

Things got a bit better in th mid-seventies when catalytic convertors eased a bit of the pressure. Then cars had to get better gas mileage.

Cadillac did some strange things such as putting gutless V-6's into big sedans.

The wonderful 4-6-8 engine used for only one year, 1981 was a nightmare.

Even worse was the introduction of the trashy 4100 engines that came out in 1982.

Cadillac's reputation suffered horribly as a result and many loyal customers jumped ship.

andre1969 · June 2010

There might have been a momentary bright spot in there, from say 1977-79. When the DeVille and Fleetwood were downsized in '77, they probably lost about 800-1000 lb. The engine was downsized as well, from a 500 CID to a 425, but still had something like 180-195 hp, depending on the year (and if it was 4-bbl or fuel injection), so they probably weren't too bad. I imagine with something like a '77-78 Eldorado though, the engine was a bit overmatched.

In 1979 the Eldorado was downsized and got a 350 V-8 as standard. I always thought it was an Oldsmobile 350, same as the Seville, but I've heard other sources say it was a Buick 350. And I'm also unsure as to whether it was fuel injected like the Seville, or 4-bbl carb. But either way it had 170 hp, and C&D or MT or somebody got 0-60 in 9.8 seconds out of one. Just for comparison, the 1970 Eldorado, with its big 500, only clocked 0-60 in 9.6. 1/4 mile was a different story though, with the '70 doing it in 16.3, while the '79 took 17.9 seconds.

One of those rags also tested a 1980 Seville, which had a 368 V-8 and something like 140-150 hp. They managed to get a 10.6 second 0-60 time out of it, and 1/4 mile in 17.9 seconds.

I've heard that the 1981 V-8-6-4 isn't TOO horrible, if you disconnect the brain of the thing and just make it run on all 8 cylinders all the time. Supposedly, it was fine on 8, fine, if underpowered, on 4, but making the jump to 6-cyl is what messed it up. But in 1981 GM was introducing something called the "CCC"..."Computer Command System" or something like that, a crude computer that was mounted down in the kick panel in the passenger side footwell. It was fine, if when it worked. But, often it didn't. My grandparents had a 1982 Malibu wagon, and that thing failed twice on them. Out of warranty, naturally.

By 1983, GM was starting to sort of get a handle on making the cars run right. Even if the hp wasn't going up, they were starting easier, stalling and stuttering less often, and running like they should, so they were beginning to make the most use of what little hp they had. Alas, by then, Cadillac had its aluminum 4.1 engine, which was good for 125hp initially, although at some point they were getting 135 out of it, as my 1985 Consumer Guide has a test of a Brougham with a 135 hp 4.1.

Oh, and another nasty little secret...Buick's 4.1 V-6, no paragon of reliability itself, had the same 125 hp, but actually had more torque...something like 205-210 ft-lb for the Buick versus 195 or so for the Caddy. So I wonder if that would mean the Buick V-6 might actually be a bit faster? The additional torque would certainly help. And you'd think with a light V-6 in there, that would take some weight off the car, but then the Caddy V-8 was aluminum, so the weight difference might have been negligible.

isellhondas · June 2010

I agree. The 1977-1979 Cadillacs wre pretty good and not really gutless.

The 4-6-8 problems as you mentioned wer mostly doe to the primative electronic controls. In time there was a wire that was clipped which put them in 8 cyl mode all of the time.

It was in these years when the domestics were scrambling and stumbling that the Japanese cars gained huge market share.

It didn't have to happen that way.

bhill2 · June 2010

Cadillac did some strange things such as putting gutless V-6's into big sedans.

The wonderful 4-6-8 engine used for only one year, 1981 was a nightmare.

Even worse was the introduction of the trashy 4100 engines that came out in 1982.

You didn't mention the famous GM 350 diesel. They put that in some Cadillacs too. A guy I knew had one (a Sedan de Ville). It was probably too square to be used as a suppository, but if he had met up with a Cadillac executive I think he would have tried.

andre1969 · June 2010

It was probably too square to be used as a suppository, but if he had met up with a Cadillac executive I think he would have tried.

Actually it would work with a 1980-85 Seville, if you back in, instead of going in forward. :shades:

isellhondas · June 2010

Oh yeah, the diesels were something else. Just a major mistake for GM.

Sandman6472 · June 2010

My folks had a '62 white one then a '64 blue with blue vinyl top...both sweet rides. The '60 4 door model they had was just a huge brute and had those fins that could be lethal weapons...lol! Throw in a '64 Lincoln, a '68 Eldorado & a '70 convertible, a great decade for cars in our family. Wish I had any of them today!

The Sandman :sick: :shades:

lemko · June 2010

The V-8-6-4 engine also had these weird tall valve covers that housed the solenoid that were supposed to enable the car to go from 8 to 6 to 4 cylinders. I recall these cars when they were new thinking they were technological marvels until I learned otherwise.

The alternate engine in 1981 was a gutless diesel based on the 350. The car was slower than molasses in January in the antarctic region of Pluto and sounded like a city bus.

Mr_Shiftright · June 2010

As *ideas* none of these things were bad---in execution, they became Frankencads.

All GM had to do was buy a dozen Mercedes diesels, reverse engineer the engines, and figure out how to make them cheaper--which Americans are very good at. I mean, the stamped rocker arm was a brilliant invention, and does a Chevy V-8 rocker arm fail any sooner than a beautifully machined or cast one? Probably not.

Cadillac used to make a GOOD CAR---especially in the early 1960s.

lemko · June 2010

Heck, GM's Guide Division figured out how to make a pretty reliable .45 caliber submachine gun for $15 that was made out of stamped metal.

Mr_Shiftright · June 2010

And, no doubt, few complaints about a defective product!

mmmdear · February 2012

I was clearing out a non-paying renter for my closest friend. When what do I see, under a tree, windows down, dog-gone-it, but a 1964 Sedan De Ville. White exterior, fintails, grill all good with original blake/yellow plates. Red interior, wish widows weren't all down. Not in terrible shape considering.
that renter took my friend for thousands of dollars, broke her mother 87 year old heart before she died in 2009. Property taxes must be paid soon. This might just pay them.
I am getting older, I like the styling ride of the sedan, but thats just some of us getting older I guess.
Looking to find its worth!

fintail · February 2012

Hard to tell what it is worth without pics, but windows down doesn't bode well. Sounds like a classy old beast, but unless it somehow really isn't that bad, it sound like it might have passed on to parts car territory, so maybe not enough to pay those taxes, sorry.

Mr_Shiftright · February 2012

Yeah, I'm with fintail on this. Parts car pricing. You could buy one of these all pretty and shiny and running great for $15,000, and you know you can't get from where this poor car is to that $15K car for less than triple that amount.

So really, take what you can get---you could advertise on craigslist and ask for offers, and let buyers do your appraisal for you. I'd guess $500 to $1500, but really I'd have to see it. The condition of the fenders and chrome and dashboard bits would be very important. No one will ever want to restore it, so forget that.

andre1969 · February 2012

Hard to tell what it is worth without pics, but windows down doesn't bode well.

I always hated seeing old cars in the junkyard with their windows rolled down. I always went over to the car and, if I could, roll the windows back up! Unfortunately, not so easy to do with a power window car.

lemmer · February 2012

Andre, you should run a "no kill" shelter for homeless old cars. And I mean that in a good way.

andre1969 · February 2012

Oh, if I was filthy rich, I'd love nothing more than to buy up a bunch of climate controlled warehouse space, and use it to preserve old cars and parts.

And heck, maybe I could get a bunch of cats from the SPCA and use them to roam the premises and keep the mouse population down! And use SPCA dogs to patrol the outside, and keep prowlers and burglars away! And hire homeless people to help watch the place, feed the dogs and cats, etc.

Or would that be too top-1% of me?

fintail · February 2012

I'd like to do that too, save some odd old heaps from the crusher. Even with people working to save cars, I know high scrap metal prices have sent many to the parking lot in the sky.

The 1% solution would be to hire some contract cats, dogs, and people from China at 1/20th the cost :shades:

marko5 · April 2017

There is a 1963 Cadillac Sedan Deville in a church parking lot not too far from me with a for sale sign. He wants $5,500 and he says the tranny is re-built. I guess that the guy used to own a body shop - because a shop truck from a body show is also for sale with the same phone number - a 1967 Ford pick-up that has had some custom mods and a cool paint job.

Anyway, I was kinda thinking that on a Cadillac, four doors are not such bad thing. It's more like a cruiser for a group of four -- or use the back seat for whatever. Anyway, the paint's in decent condition, couple rust spots, and the chrome is good. The price seems more than fair.

Mr_Shiftright · April 2017

That sounds just about the fair market price for one in "fair" condition--a #4 car. The problem is you can buy them really nice for $10K, so sometimes the cheaper one ends up being the most expensive, in a car of this type. They aren't cheap to fix and the aftermarket isn't all that good.

isellhondas · April 2017

It seems this topic has some new life! It was quite active and interesting in the past.

I have to wonder whatever happened to Parm and did he ever buy a car? Anyone know?

Sandman6472 · April 2017

Our '64 Sedan de Ville was blue with a blue vinyl top, very impressive looking and our first vinyl roof. Preferred the simplicity of the white '62 model and liked the '62's tail light treatment so much better. My one grandpa proffered Imperials and got a new one every other year also. Great oval steering wheels with the push button automatics and the earlier ones had a swivel drivers seat as I recall. Was quite young then, born in 54, but loved cars when I was young enough to walk my folks always told me. They and my grandparents always said I was obsessed with any car I saw and could tell the different models each year. My one true passion to this day actually and can now finally afford to get nicer drivers. Only issue is my wife is holding me to one at a time while I want a "toy"!!!

The Sandman

berri · April 2017

62 styling was probably my personal favorite for Cadillac. But I did love those over the top fins on the 59

1963-1964 Cadillacs

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles