1962 Cadillac - any driving experiences out there?



  • impeimpe Member Posts: 33
    How about driving impressions of a 1969 Cadillac convertible? I just bought one and drove it up from Florida to north Georgia.

    I had forgotten about the vague steering on these old cars. On turns I crank the wheel and wait for what seems like a few seconds for the car to respond, then either crank in a bit more or back off. It really took some getting used to.

    And also, first time in a long time back to a carb instead of FI - not good!!

    I got about 14.5 mpg on the trip which is not bad for a 472 CI engine.

    Went through Atlanta around 9:30PM at 70 mph, (which means that you are being passed by everyone else on the road; got a lot of looks, and some thumbs up but I couldn't appreciate them because I had to concentrate on keeping the thing in my lane which appeared to be only about two inches wider then the car.

    I put the top down today for a short cruise; it is actually more quiet at 40 - 50 with the top down, than with the top up; guess that means new seals all around.

    I hope there are some people reading this who know about old Caddys because I am sure I will have lots of questions.


  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    Congratulations on your recent purchase. How I envy you.

    For whatever its worth, in order to get specific answers to your ownership questions, you might want to consider joining the Cadillac LaSalle Club. I recently did in order to help further my education of '62 Cadillac convertibles and to network with other Cadillac enthusiasts in my area - which I've done in the short time I've been a member.

    The CLC has a website with a message board. So, you can post your questions and receive responses from other owners.

    The CLC website is http://www.cadillaclasalleclub.org/ where you'll find membership information (though you don't need to be a member to use the message board).

    Hope this helps.

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Driving the old Caddies is a lot like driving a boat. It takes a while for the steering to answer the helm. But once you get used to that again, you can plan for it, relax and let the car find its way.

    The rule for these old cars is (among others)====Always stop and accelerate in a straight line if you can.
  • jrosasmcjrosasmc Member Posts: 1,711
    I've never driven a '62 Cadillac before, but I have ridden in a '76 Eldorado and '78 Olds Cutlass Supreme coupe before. Both were owned by friends of the family. The Eldo drove almost the exact same way as the Cutlass, floaty and mushy, only there was too much front overhang on the massive Caddy. Not good for heavy urban driving.
  • impeimpe Member Posts: 33
    I am going to look into the CLC. I really will need help fixing some of the things that do not presently work.

    For example, the horn will not sound - the 69 Caddy horn is activated by squeezing the steering wheel which adds another dimension - a bit different from a horn button.

    The high beams do not function - again there is an added dimension because mine has the "Auto Dimmer" feature. Also the "climate control" function may confuse the issue of why I am not getting heat.

    This car is 18.75 feet long; my pontoon boat is 22 feet long; they both handle about the same. I had it out again today and it really is fun on the mountain roads; being huge, other drivers seem more patient when they are behind me. I also spent a lot of time just looking around under the hood - lots of things in there that I cannot figure out.

    Incidently, my wife hates the car. I wish I could record her comments but most are not printable. She is totally UN-COOL!!

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,390
    So when do we get to see pics? What does 18.75 feet come out to...about 225"? For some reason, I figured a '69 Caddy would be longer than that. My '69 Bonneville was about 225" long, yet on a shorter wheelbase, but maybe it had more overhang than the Caddies?

    Hopefully your wife will come around soon. BTW, what does she drive?
  • impeimpe Member Posts: 33
    The 225 inches is according to the owner's manual, and as I remember, the Pontiacs were very large back then also.

    My wife will never come around!! When she drives, (and that thought is very scary!), it is in a 2001 Toyota Highlander. Prior to the Highlander, she drove a 98 Camry and I had a 99 Miata. She took a liking to the Highlander and badgered me into trading in the Camry and the Miata, (she said I am to old and fat for a Miata anyway).

    She has never ridden in my 71 E-Type but at least she admits that it is CUTE!

    The new Caddy is not CUTE! It is big and UGLY!

    But I don't think I want her in the Caddy anyway because she will want to take our black lab who sheds enough on a daily basis to make another dog.

    Send me your E-mail address and I'll send the pictures; you can E-mail me at [email protected]

    I just got a catalog from a place in Manassas VA that specializes in Cadillac, and I am going through it for my wish list - but I will have to take it slow because some of what I want is quite expensive.

  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    As a "wannabe" Cadillac owner, can you provide the name of the company from Manassa, VA you mentioned above? I'd like to check out their goods.

  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    I meant to post this earlier. Thought you'd find it interesting to know that the steering wheel rim horn feature was called, now get this, "Rim Blow". No fool'n!

    I've seen this rim-blow feature on 1970 +/- Mustangs. There were probably other makes/models that had it too.
  • im_brentwoodim_brentwood Member Posts: 4,883
    Yup.. that's what its' called.

    My '73 MarquisBrougham has one. (Rim-Blow horn)

    I think 73 was the last year.

  • impeimpe Member Posts: 33
    The catalog is free and it is from:

    U.S.A. Parts Supply Ltd
    8505L Euclid Ave
    Manassas, Va 20111

    Phone 703-335-1935
    Fax 800-872-2014

    Website www.usapartssupply.com

    Probably best to go to their website and order the free catalog. As I remember it they also specialize in Olds.

    Remember that I am new to Cadillac, parts, and associated costs so I do not know how their prices are relative to other companies. In fact, that might be a good sub-topic for discussion. My initial info source for just about anything is Hemmings Motor News.

    Re: the "Rim Blow" horn, does anyone know where the most likely problem area is cause my Rim Blow don't!!



    For my Jaguar, there are several parts suppliers some of which are a lot higher than others.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    Anybody check out the '59 Cadillac convertible in the commercial for the new CTS?

    No doubt, the ad agency that came up with this TV spot was paid very handsomely - thereby implying that they know what they're doing. TV commercials have a way of impacting what's cool and what's not. Therefore, I'm assuming the choice to use a '59 Cadillac in this promo was a conscious decision intended to draw people's attention.

    As a result, could it be that my desire for a '62 Cadillac convertible puts me at the forefront of today's pop culture?

    If so, this confirms what I've thought all along . . . . that the universe revolves around me! ;-)

    Excuse me now while I extricate my tongue which is firmly pressed up against my cheek.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Actually I think using the '59 Cadilac was not a very good idea. For "art" perhaps, for "results", no.

    If I were Cadillac I'd distance any new product as far away from a '59 Cadillac as I could, presuming I wanted things to get better for the company. I mean, really, wouldn't you? What a strange car to hang your hat on!

    It's things like this that make me wonder if Cadillac will ever "get it" about what people want in the 21st century. The potential buyers of the CTS are not in the pop culture anyway, so my read is that the ad agency's demographic target is completely screwed up. They picked a car that old timers used to buy, and pitched it to 21 year olds, neither of which is a CTS market.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    It wasn't too long ago (I still see it) when Porsche rolled out a TV commercial showing one of their early sports cars (a Sportster perhaps?) in a similar "changing of the guard" fashion with one of the hot, new models.

    Whether you think it was a marvel or a technological disaster, the fact remains that the '59 is an automotive icon - at least the rear grill and fins are, thus resulting is some positive public perception, in an overall sense.

    I think this "positive vibe" is what Cadillac was hanging their hat on by using a '59 in their ad. Let's face it, most who see this commercial have never even ridden in one let alone owned one. And those that did own a '59 when they were brand new, are no longer Cadillac's target market.

    So, any negative stigma with regard to maintenance/ownership nightmares has long since dissipated - leaving only positive thoughts in its wake.

    I guess I'm not as cynical in Cadillac's effort to use the past to try and sell the future. Because, the "past" is now distorted into a blur and the few who theoretically could recount negative "war stories" from the trenches of ownership are probably no longer able to do so.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,390
    It makes me want to go out and buy an old finned Caddy more than it does a CTS, though!
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    I may regret bringing this subject up, but I just couldn't resist.

    I was just looking over the posts in the Cadillac CTS message boards and I certainly don't want to carry that excess baggage over to this forum. But, I had to giggle at the comments which are essentially this: Cadillac vs. Mercedes vs. Lexus vs. BMW - which is better?

    The niggling comments about the infinitesimal differences between these cars are entertaining. Reminds me of a pretentious customer at an elegant restaurant sending back a bottle of Dom Perignon because it was 2 degrees too warm!

    In my opinion, all of these cars are great - and they should be for their price of admission. The 100th of a second differences in 0-60 acceleration, the fractional differences in lateral g-force during a slalom run and the 2ft in braking distance during a 60-0 stop have very little relevance in normal, day-to-day driving.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they have their own forum where they can "vent" their opinions. However, most of the comments are really pushing the definition limits of the term "minutiae".

    They should all take a drive in my (yeah right, like I own one) '62 Cadillac. Then, they'd appreciate just how great ALL of today's luxury cars are - regardless of their ethnicity.

    Don't worry Andre1969, I'm not referring to you. Yep, I saw you in there! ;-)
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    I'm not sure what other Cadillac they could have used. Nothing else says "old Cadillac" as clearly and quickly to the most people. I'd prefer a '58 Brougham but how many people know that one? A V16 roadster or the first Sixty Special would have been in better taste but remember the theme song, Zep's "Been a Long Time Since I Rocked and Rolled". To a lot of people that '59 was the last time Cadillac was so out there it was rocking--although that may not have been the perception in 1959.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,390
    ...but I wonder if we had the internet 40 years ago, we'd be online carrying on about Cadillacs, Lincolns, and Imperial, ragging on Japanese cars like we do Daewoos nowadays, and reminisicing about '39 Packards. Heck, we'd probably have a thread called "Death Watch...DeSoto, Edsel, who's next?" and be debating the longevity of Studebaker and Rambler!
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,390
    ...that people recognize right away, it's the '59. At the time, it was symbolic of everything that was going wrong with Detroit, but today it seems to symbolize everything that was cool about it! Funny how times change, isn't it?
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    Gentleman, my thoughts exactly.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    Remember how the '59 stood out in the first scene, the '50s traffic scene? They're tying that in with the Arts & Crafts--sorry, Art & Science--styling of the CTS, which will stand out in modern traffic just slightly less than a small plane landing on a freeway.

    Symbolism, Shifty, symbolism. Besides, martinis and Sinatra are big again. We'll be invading Cuba next.
  • c43amg7c43amg7 Member Posts: 32
    While I appreciate that parm is after a Cadillac convertible, if you want a big car that handles well, is reliable and is relatively easy to maintain, you might consider the '88-'91 Mercedes 420SEL, 560SEL or 560SEC [coupe] -- the last M-B with the unbeatable combination of old M-B build quality, engineering and super-solid "battleship" construction but without the computer/electronic wizardry which makes the M-B 140 series (the '92 - '99 S class, the last of the big-bodied Benzs) so complex and expensive to maintain. You can find good examples in your $12,000 to $15,000 price range that are a lot safer (airbags, ABS, handling, etc.) and less challenging to drive than an old Cadillac.

    Admittedly not a convertible, though -- although there are after-market conversions of the 560SEC available, still in the $15,000 price range.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Well, who knows. To me, the 1959 is a skeleton that should be kept in the corporate closet. What does that car say? Excess, clumsy, loud, ostentatious, rude, tasteless.

    Now I'm not saying such things don't "sell". Obviously they do! Look at Harley, they've made a mint off of it. But I really don't think this is the market Cadillac is looking for, to become the Harley of luxury cars.

    Anyone who owns a Lexus, Mercedes, Porsche, BMW wouldn't be caught dead in a 1959 Cadillac except for a dress-up retro sock hop maybe. It's sort of a joke car in a friendly sort of way.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    To c43amg7. Yep, I'm afraid I must require a convertible. Wouldn't be any point otherwise (my humble opinion).

    A guy I know has a cute saying I don't necessarily agree with, but I'll share it anyway. "If it's not a convertible, it's a parts car." Makes me smile every time I think of it. ;-)

    No doubt a Mercedes would be built solid as a tank, but I need a car I can take just about anywhere to have it worked on. I'm afraid a Mercedes, as good as they are, wouldn't afford me that luxury. Plus, I'll bet the labor/parts costs for a Mercedes are more expensive compared to the same repair for a GM piece of iron (total restoration projects excluded).

    Still, I appreciate your suggestion. Keep'em coming folks.
  • sweetjeldoradosweetjeldorado Member Posts: 94
    That '59 Cadillac is one of the most revered icons back in 50s and '60s. That was the reason why they had the car in the commercial back then because it was great more so compared to the post fuel crisis Cadillacs in the 70s, 80s and early 90s.

    I thought the commercial was cool like hell and watch the one with the CTS passing by the car and the same clip with the extended version of the other two Cadillacs, the EXT and the XLR halo car. I think this is the best commercial Cadillac has brought out thus far with the two CTS commercials in a close 2nd. place.

    The CTS is a great car same as for the XLR and EXT models for Cadillac with great styling, technology and other things put on Cadillacs that made them great in the mid-part of the century on the new breed of models is for the '59 Coupe to recall off of.

    Of course the new breed of Cadillacs are different than the Cadillacs of the era due to changing times and customs but if you notice in that commercial about that guy driving that '59 Cadillac, he did not look old at all like some of the current customers driving in Devilles today that are getting older. Back then Cadillac buyers were probably a lot lower than that in age compared to today's standards like in the late '40s to early '50s of that time. Anyone knows the average age a Cadillac buyer was back then?

    If you look at the advertisements of the Porche Carrera, notice how each generation of Porches line up side by side one another in automobile publications. I like the newer Porches a lot better than the older generations of Porches. I thought the older generation of Porches are ugly.

    J "CaddyLac"
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    Yes, I do think Cadillac wants to be the Harley of luxury cars. There's a certain segment of the market that wants honkin' luxury performance and doesn't want it to be too subtle because someone might miss it. Conspicuous consumption is still with us. I was out with some Chinese clients and happened to say "moderation in all things" and I think they're still laughing. They couldn't believe an American would say that.

    Regarding convertibles, there's an interesting dichotomy between old convertibles and old everything else. Drive an old convertible and you're seen as cool. Drive an old sedan and you're seen as either eccentric or, even worse, poor.

    BTW I saw my first CTS today, in silver, and it looked good.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    The mere though that Cadillac would be proud of that Frankenstein of a car called a '59 Cadillac makes me realize that the company is probably doomed. Of ALL the fab cars they made in 100 years, they had to hire an ad agency to pick THAT ONE?

    I don't think a lot of people, except maybe industry types, realize how much Cadillac has riding on their new models coming up. They are planning a huge investment in trying to win back a share of the luxury car market. If any of their models slips up, or if their controversial styling doesn't work, the company is DEAD. That's it. 3-5 more years for Cadillac and they are either in or out.

    You see, we don't know if the CTS is a "great car" or not! It could be yet another Cadillac disaster in a long string of them. And there's no "honkin" performance in a Harley. The bikes really are cows. Cadillac needs younger styling and really great performance, and they have to be screwed together right, which has always been a problem for Cadillac.

    Now if it were me choosing car commercials for the biggest roll of the dice in Cadillac's history, I would have picked President Eisenhower's 1953 Eldo. There was a pretty nice looking car associated with the power and success of the presidency. Even a '55 with Sinatra in it, I could have lived with that. Or the cleaner and more restrained '60s cars.

    Geez, a '59 Caddy. Makes me cringe. I don't agree, I don't think there's a market for tasteless ostentation. Even today's multi-million dollar homes, while BIG, do not have fiberglass cherubs spouting colored water into swan-boats on the front lawn while the lady of the house dresses up like Cleopatra. Maybe in Las Vegas, yes. So Cadillac could open up one big dealership there and sell repo '59s, that would be appropriate.

    Cadillac better keep its eyes on the ball these next few years. Let's wish them well.
  • sweetjeldoradosweetjeldorado Member Posts: 94
    Why is it that commercials even if it is corny has to make or break a car? At least Cadillac did market their commercials during the Super Bowl game with the highest viewer rating. This is tremendous exposure and stir up a lot of prospects. Anyone that is closed-minded and refused to take a look at the Cadillac is just kidding him or herself unless they seen the car before and did not like the styling at all. Don't base on the commercial and determine that the CTS will be a failure or a success. Base on what you see on television that intrigued you about the car and you decide if you want to check the car(s) out at the dealership. If people saw it on TV or any ads in the paper and no one checks them out with a lack of interests due to styling is a failure of a product.

    It is just marketing. To who's standards, does the commercial has to be perfect? No, but they have to market themselves somehow to have the future cars to be noticed. The commercials were not funny but at least it was interesting regardless if the '59 Cadillac was right for the commercial or not. At least I was very interested in the CTS. XLR and EXT and want to check them out at the local dealership when they come out. That is the kind of admiration we are talking about here. The substance or quality of the commercial does not have anything to do with the future Cadillacs being a failure or success. People have to go and test drive the cars to determine if it is great to them and generate some prospects.

    J "CaddyLac"
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    There is truth in what you say. I don't think commercials make or break a car either. Remember how the Infiniti commercials failed? But that was really because the car itself was not distinctive enough. The Lexus looked nicer and got out of the gate faster.

    I was just surprised Cadillac would want a 59 in their commercials, since they took so much heat for building it, even back then. It was often scorned by the press and media. Remember the book "The Insolent Chariots"? Cadillac really needs to hit a home run every time at the plate now. One more screw up and the press will tear them to shreds.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    No, I know Harleys don't really honk, but they sound like it and they look like it to the average civilian. They've got that "too big and too bad" image most of us innately gravitate too. Transfer that mindset to four wheels and you've got a '59 Cadillac.

    Do I think the ad is hip? No, but I think they've zeroed in on something that's real. Some of us are still driving '59 Cadillacs but now they're called Suburbans.

    Do I think it's a good way to sell a sports sedan? No, it's a great way to sell Escalades. They should have shown all those laps at the Nurburgring. This has all the earmarks of "the Caddy the zigs" fiasco. But it's the only Super Bowl ad I remember--that and the dancing monkey.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    It's not easy switching your corporate image. Harley did it quite successfullly, getting their bikes into the hands of affluent riders who wanted to be "bad" but still own homes and work in a bank. It was a neat trick, and they only had to improve the product marginally, from bad to mediocre.

    As for car companies, Oldsmobile tried but didn't succeed in luring more youthful drivers "This isn't your father's Oldsmobile"). Honda and Toyota went upscale but had to add a whole new brand name. Jaguar definitely went upscale in the early 70s and pulled that off pretty well, again with only a marginal increase in quality.

    I don't think the Cadillac buyer of 1962 and the one of 2002 are so radically different in basic values or image, but the age definitely has to drop or all of Cadillacs customers will be dead or disabled in 10 years. This is not good.

    Cadillac's great success in the 1950s was due, I think, to their offering "the best America has", and I think it was true back then. But now there are any number of good American cars that can compete with current Cadillacs. Cadillac has to really ramp up to make their newest Cadillacs conspicuously better, just like a German understanding that a VW is not a Mercedes.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    This subject could possibly support its own forum, but I'll stick it here because I'm looking at a '62 Cadillac convertible that lacks factory air conditioning.

    I know that a factory correct A/C system can be installed using original parts - if you can find them.

    However, there's a company called Vintage Air which makes systems specifically for older cars and custom rods. I just emailed them to inquire if they have a product specifically for a '62 Cadillac.

    Does anyone have experience/knowledge about this company and whether these systems look factory installed?

    Supposedly, Vintage Air systems function much better than an original (ie., 40 year old) system - which sounds reasonable given modern technology.

    My concern is whether this company would have the dash/head control unit that would match the rest of the car along with the dash A/C vents.

    As always, any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I don't think they match dashboards. They make a/c for hotrods, etc mostly is my recollection.
    But this doesn't matter as long as you don't alter your car in the installation.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,390
    ...but back then, I think most air conditioning systems, even factory jobs, just hung up under the dashboard, and really didn't interfere with the design of the dash. Usually the factory A/C systems looked nicer...thinner, more compact, better materials, while the aftermarket ones were usually these big bulky plastic things.
  • ghuletghulet Member Posts: 2,564
    .......at least from as far back as about '60 had dash a/c vents and actually was a 'built-in' feature of the entire HVAC system, IIRC. A '62 with factory a/c will have round vents at both ends of the dash, and will look different from one without. Actually, GM was pretty good at incorporating factory a/c in their cars, I've seen '60 Chevies for which the above is also true.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    Yes, installed from the factory, a '62 Cadillac had round dash vents at both ends of the dashboard. There was also an additional A/C vent located under the leading edge of the dash, about equal-distant between the two, aforementioned end dash vents.

    My question is how seamless would a retro-fitted system be in terms of appearance. The dash vents would, reportedly, not be a big deal to install. Its the control/head unit I'm curious about. Would it replace the existing control/head unit that currently provides the heater/fresh air controls? Or, would this new system be able to use a factory-original A/C head control unit?
  • badgerpaulbadgerpaul Member Posts: 219
    Another big difference between a factory installed A/C and an aftermarket, was that the factory A/C generally was able to incorporate in to the car venitlation system and could bring fresh air into the system. Most if not all aftermarket units just recirculated the air already in the car.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    Back in the days when I ran a large shop for Sears, we installed a LOT of aftermarket A/C units. "Mickey Mouse" air to some people.

    I remember a good installer could knock out three cars a day. In the mid-seventies we sold these for something like 295.00 installed.

    Badgerpaul is right, they only recirculated the air inside the car. Still, they did work pretty well.

    I remember ordering R-12 freon by the tankfulls!
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    Can anyone tell me where I can find what colors were available for Cadillac in 1962? I'm looking at some convertibles and they all happen to be blue or teal in color. However, none seem to be the same color.

    Looks like I've lost out on one because I wasn't willing to go up to the seller's asking price of $18K (down from his original $23,900) for what appeared to be a very nice Series 62. But, apparently someone else was willing because the seller has found a buyer for his price. Going in, I had a price and, right or wrong, I stuck to it. So, once again I'm an outsider looking in. Onward and upward!

    I have two 1962 Cadillac brochures, but none of them list the available colors. They credit the makers of the gowns worn by the ladies in the brochure (ie., Saks Fifth Avenue, etc.), but no mention of the colors! T'was a different time.

    A '62 shop manual would probably have the information. I should probably buy one of these on eBay.

    Thus, if anyone knows what "blue" or "blue-related" colors were available in 1962 (and a verbal reference as to what a specific color refers to; ie., light blue, navy blue, etc.), I would be very appreciative.

    I'm also going to post this request on the Cadillac LaSalle Club message board. So, the gauntlet of challenge has been laid. You guys have never let me down yet. Let me know if you have any "colorful" information.

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,390
    ...you might want to go to an automotive paint store and see if they have color charts going back that far. I haven't painted a car in years, but the two I did (a '69 Dart GT and a '68 Dart 270), the shop had some big books with color charts, and the guy just let me look and pick out the color.

    I don't think a shop manual would have color charts in it. I have a shop manual for my '57 DeSoto that a friend gave me for Christmas, and it's all technical and mechanical stuff...nothing about colors, fabrics, etc. Still, a shop manual would be a good thing to have!

    Anyway Parm, good luck in your search. The right one will come along, eventually!
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    No, I've never seen a manual with colors. I think the sales brochures are the best source for that, although there can be a difference between what the color looks like printed and what it looks like on a car.

    I think what you're running across is that when a car is repainted the color is usually eye matched, or it may even just be a stock color that happens to be close to the original. Each factory color has a formula and unless the new paint follows that formula it'll be noticeably different.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    A gentleman was kind enough to post these for me on the CLC website message board. So, here are the Cadillac colors available in 1962 (sorry the formating is a bit off).

    Color Code
    Concord Blue.............3
    Med. Saddle Tan(Bronze)..5
    Olympic White............12
    Nevada Silver............14
    Aleution Grey............16
    Newport Blue.............22
    Avalon Blue..............24
    York Blue................26
    Granada Green............36
    Driftwood Beige..........46
    Pompeian Red.............50
    Silver "Fire-Frost"......61
    Gold "Fire-Frost.........64
    Neptune Blue.............94
    Pinehurst Green..........96
    Victorian Green..........97

    You can find the paint code on the Cadillac body number plate. It is riveted to the cowl at the left of center under the hood.

    Convertible top color codes

    Lt. Gold.................4
    Med. Blue................5
    Lt. Sandalwood...........6
    Med. Pink................7
    Lt. Blue.................8
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    Found a great website to find paint chip samples of classic cars. It's called autocolorlibrary.com.

    Here's a link showing the colors available for Cadillac in 1962.


  • impeimpe Member Posts: 33
    Thanks for the info on the paint chips. I just printed out the paint chip sheet for 1969.

    I am finally finished, (with a lot of help from Cadillac friends out on the Web), figuring out what all those codes are on the ID Plate. I really had a problem with "FWD" which turns out to be the "Fleetwood Detroit" Assembly Plant.

    Last Sunday, I took the dog out for her first ride. She sat in the back seat with the top down. She liked it - sort of like riding in the pickup but much more smooth. At 65 mph her fur was flying up into the front seat so badly that I had to slow down because it was getting in my eyes.

    This car is only 3.25 feet shorter than our pontoon boat, but handles marginally better.

    This is going to be a fun car - can't wait for Spring to get here. For those of you who are contemplating, my advice - take a hint from Nike - just do it!

    Again, Thanks for the color chip info.

  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    Can you repeat your advice? I want my wife to read it. ;-)
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    I'm looking at a '62 Eldorado convertible that was restored around 10 years ago. I'm in the process of setting up an inspection by a Cadillac LaSalle Club member who knows exponentially more about these cars than yours truly.

    However, last week I did my own informal walk-around inspection. The thing that impressed me the most was how solid the car felt when doing the "door closure" test. The doors closed with a nice, solid "thunk" without fuss or any rattles.

    This partially explains my desire for a 1962 Cadillac. For their day, these cars were well built - which I'm hoping translates into a car that in 2002 feels alot more solid compared to a 65-66 Mustang convertible, 66-67 GTO convertible or most others from any of the Big 3.

    I don't have any illusions that a '62 Cadillac would even begin to compare with a modern car, but I'm hoping the total package would compare favorably to any other domestic of similar vintage thereby allowing me to get the biggest bang for my buck.

    Anyone care to agree or disagree?
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    All I can tell you is that the full-size GM convertibles I've had generally felt more sold than the GM intermediate convertibles I've had, apparently depending on the full-sizer's price range, so I think you're headed in the right direction.

    The '65 Tempest and '67 LeMans convertibles I owned were real flexiflyers. If they're typical of GM intermediate convertibles then I don't want another one. The '66 Wildcat felt solid and the '63 Starfire convertible was like a bank vault. The '61 and '65 Impalas didn't feel either loose or tight, kind of in between. The '61 Bonneville felt really sloppy, especially since I owned the Starfire at the same time. All of these cars had a goodly number of miles so I don't think that was a big variable in my case.
  • carnut4carnut4 Member Posts: 574
    convertible back in 1962 at a car show. I remember the sticker price was $6300, a lot for that time, since my Dad's new Impala SS stickered at around $3500. That Cadillac left an impression-it was maize color [kind of a butterscotch] with matching leather interior. A beautiful car, I thought. I always liked the 61-62 Cads better than any others from the 60s. I was looking at the Collector Car Trader Online website last night, and was surprised to see a number of 62 Cad convertibles, all of them nice, ranging in price from the low teens to the low-mid twenties. Might want to check it out. I still maintain that the 61-63 Cads, with the 390 engines, Hydramatics, and high geared rearends would push the high teens on the road for gas mileage. This is what I've heard over the years for those models. Anyway, go for it, and tell me about it. My 62 Impala SS with 42,000 original miles is a close cousin wannabe. Always fun to cruise in.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    Every time you talk about your 62 SS Impala, I conjure up fond memories of the one I had.

    What a beautiful car! I remember the factory A/C blew out the COLDEST air of any car I've owned since.
  • carnut4carnut4 Member Posts: 574
    so I'll be taking the 62 out for more and more cruises. I just love the car-it takes me back to the summer of 62, when I was cruising in my Dad's IDENTICAL new 62 SS. And like you said, Isell, the Powerglide isn't that bad! Still shifts tight, and that 327 has plenty of torque. Hey, the sun's out! Think I'll take it for a cruise.
This discussion has been closed.