Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
1962 Cadillac - any driving experiences out there?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Actually, if you took a shabby '62 Eldo and went through it top to bottom, doing a nut and bolt restoration, you'd have way over $30K in it.
As a commercial real estate appraiser, I have a saying that "cost is not necessarily synonymous with value."
In my opinion, one thing you have to consider when buying a restored car is "how well do I like the restoration?"
As an example, let's say you restored a '62 Eldorado to true concours standards in terms of quality and selected a color combination you think looks absolutely fabulous, but makes others turn away in horror. I'd say your chances of recouping your restoration costs are pretty slim.
My point is, if I'm going to shell out the bucks to cover a "true" restoration, then I'd just assume pay to restore a car myself. That way, I can call the shots with regard to color, quality and authenticity of the parts used, etc.
However, by doing so, I inherently take a risk knowing my tastes and perceptions may not be in tune with the mainstream of the market. Hence, "cost is not necessarily synonymous with value."
Guess I've said that before.
Both gorgeous cars, but that white one seems really stunning.
Just out of curiosity, is there really any advantage to a '62 Caddy over a '61? Anything that makes one more desireable than the other? I tend to group them together, since I'd love to have either one, but I guess the slightly lower fins might make the '62 a bit more tasteful.
As you probably know, the rear grill of the 61's have a horizontal pod for the back up/tail lights along with higher fins. Whereas, the 62's have a smaller, vertical light pod and also smaller fins. Personally, I don't care for the horizontal pod of the 61's. They look to "Buck Rogers" for my taste.
The other main difference is in the front grill. The 61's have round driving/fog lamp fixtures. Whereas, the 62's have a square opening.
Mechanically, I think they're pretty much identical.
I don't think there were any mechanical differences.
www.karseasgarden.com
To ghulet: I'm impressed with your knowledge of early 60's Cadillacs. Thought I was the only one in this town hall "touched" enough to follow that stuff.
By the way, the yellow that was available in 1962 was called Maize which is also one of my favorite colors.
The opening bid on this car was something like $17,500 or $17,900 so you'd naturally expect this car would receive zero bids. In fact, it didn't receive any bids for most of its auction period. However, as the auction is winding down, 4 people apparently feel this car is worth this much. The seller apparently also wasn't very confident about his asking price, because he's removed the reserve.
The bidding is now up to $18,600 with roughly 21 hours to go. Hard to believe.
Still, as we all well know, this doesn't mean the car will sell when the auction ends. Plus, we also don't know if these represent "real" bids or shill bids.
I wouldn't be surprised to see this car back on Ebay.
I love how people write ads:
All original except for the paint
Everything works except for the clock, which is an easy fix.
COMMENTS:
It's NOT original if it's been repainted
If the clock is so easy to fix, why didn't you do it?
This kind of nickel and dime miserliness reminds me of going to these high-class auctions. Invariably, a $100,000 car rolls up to the ramp and....and....RUNS OUT OF GAS!
So, what's the story. You didn't want to give the new owner the ten gallons?
I enjoy asking sellers, "Well, which is it?" Because it can't be both.
It's just that after seeing countless ads then seeing the car, I've become pretty skeptical. As a result, when someone tells me a car is in "excellent" condition, I immediately assume it's condition is no better than good. A car advertised as being "good" is usually no better than fair to average.
Thus, when I saw the write-up on this white '62 Cadillac convertible, I figured we were dealing with a car that was perhaps very nice, but not one that was truly exceptional - which, at over $18K and according to CPI's definition of "excellent", it apparently is.
#1 cars basically do not exist. Well, they do, but they are never driven so most of us won't see them unless we go to concours often.
#2 cars are, to the casual eye, perfect, but in fact are usually wonderful cars but with flaws that show up in closer examination, or some errors is restoration. #2s are usually driven, but not a lot, or they are former #1s just coming off the show circuit and ready to go back "to the real world".
The paint, panel fit and interior workmanship put a brand-new Lexus to shame. No 1958 DeSoto left the factory in that condition. It's a stunning car, but you can't really drive it and keep it in that condition. It was nice to look at, though.
I looked this morning and the ad is now gone. Looks like a one day ad or something? Strange!
Other things I've heard (and hear in the business) that I get a kick out of...
" It's ALL freeway miles!"
The car is running rough...
" It just needs to be driven" or...
" I think I got bad gas"
" Oh, the A/C "just" needs a charge"
" I think the transmission needs the bands adjusted"
" Oh...that whine in the rear end has been there for years, it's no big deal"
" The paint just needs "rubbing out".
" It only smokes when it's cold..no big deal"
I'm sure you guys can think of more.
(This means that the pistons, valves, rods, etc. do not actually move while the car drives on the highway)
" It just needs to be driven" or...
" I think I got bad gas"
(needs new injectors /carb , gas tank boiled out, complete tune up, ten years of maintenance)
" Oh, the A/C "just" needs a charge"
(needs a new compressor, evaporator, dryer, climate control panel, belts, hoses, and freon)
" I think the transmission needs the bands adjusted"
( mean the rubber bands holding the internal parts together_
" Oh...that whine in the rear end has been there for years, it's no big deal"
(Well, LOL, that one could be true!)
" The paint just needs "rubbing out".
(better yet, sanding down to bare metal, and then maybe some additional paint of the same color to get that luster back!)
" It only smokes when it's cold..no big deal"
(nothing new valve seals, guides and valves wouldn't fix).
Funny how problems are minimized when people are selling and amplified when they are buying.
In Real Estate it's even worse.
ALL freeway miles...the seller NEVER ONCE drove it on a surface street!
I also like.."It has an ALL leather interior"
If they only knew how little leather there really is in most modern cars.
Not that I'm giving it serious consideration, but the thought of owning a hardtop has popped up from time to time. Here's a '64 Coupe Deville that looks interesting.
http://ww1.hemmings.com/hemmings/searches/images/141627D.jpg
It's the right color and includes A/C which would be a "must have" in a hardtop.
Several folks have told me that a hardtop is a much better choice in terms of living with a classic car - particularly for doing power tours. You eliminate the risk of getting fried by Mr. Sun and also eliminate (or at least greatly reduce the likelihood of) leaks, rattles and wind noise during "top up" driving in a convertible.
Been a long, long time since I owned a convertible (Well OK, it was my parent's. It was a '65 Tempest that I learned to drive in). So long that I can't remember what I'm missing.
Still, I'd think that nothing would beat a convertible on a warm summer evening. On the other hand, you could make the argument that those opportunities are relatively few compared to the time when a hardtop would be equally as satisfying. A Couple Deville is a no-post car. So, with all the windows down, you'd kind of get a quasi-convertible experience, no?
Oh yeah, did I mention that hardtop is A LOT LESS EXPENSIVE!?
I fear I'm beginning to waiver . . . . .
Personally, if I were to not get a convertible, I'd probably buy a four-door hardtop. In a closed car, I always like the convenience of four doors to haul my peeps around. Also, sedans are generally cheaper still than two-door hardtops. Some of the Cadillac sedans of that era are quite tempting. How 'bout a Fleetwood?:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1868482384
We all conjure up only the most pleasant of experiences when driving a convertible. But, unless you live in a Norman Rockwell painting or in an area where the sun is always at your back (and not in your eyes), sometimes I wonder if a convertible is all that it's cracked up to be.
No, I didn't have a bad today and I don't mean to sound overly cynical. It's just that there are times I think to myself, "Man, I'm glad I'm not in a convertible". And, I don't live in a dangerous or bad urban area. Hey, I live in Indiana. How bad can that be, right?
On the other hand, I'm not looking at getting a Caddy convertible as my daily driver. So, to some degree, before sliding behind the wheel, I would probably have a "flight plan" mapped out that would take me through only the most scenic of routes.
So, is it actually possible to drive into a Normal Rockwell painting? You know, the one of the quiet, little hamlet when the autumn leaves are turning with the church steeple in the background.
All my convertibles were pretty ordinary cars but they would have been far more ordinary as coupes.
Let's see, '61 Impala, '61 Bonneville, '62 Monza, '63 Starfire, '65 Impala, '65 Wildcat, '65 Tempest, '67 Le Mans...nope no world beaters there but they were some of the most enjoyable cars I've owned. Even the Tempest and Le Mans, two of the loosest cars I've owned.
I don't count the '65 MG-B as part of that group--it was not an ordinary car.
Convertibles are a lot more useful in Colorado and New Mexico and parts of California where you can count on maybe 300 days of sunshine a year without bugs, humidity and airborne missiles.
Right now, I can honestly say that a 4-door is not in the picture. But, thanks for the suggestion.
The secret truth is that there are only about 5 days a year when you really want to put the top down. You'll do it a little more often, because it's a convertible, dammit, and you should.
But.... those 5 days ayear make it all worth while.
Women talk big about loving convertibles, but don't really like to ride around with the top down. It's too hot or too cold, or too dusty. Failing all of those, it's too windy and a scarf or a hat makes her feel silly. There are very few exceptions to this rule..... but one of those few exceptions can make it all worth while.
Hold out for the convertible.
I do admire them but would lean toward a Coupe De Ville myself. Much less money, less to maintain and if it became necessary I could use it as a daily driver if I had to.
It's no fun being in a convertable when the sun is beating down on you either.
Sometimes I say "okay, convertible but only a SMALL sports car, because the American converts are such flexi-flyers and rattle and shake".
Then sometimes I say "Yeah, but the really SERIOUS sports car driver wants a coupe for structural rigidity and long-range comfort"
Then sometimes I say "But you know, straight line cruising on a summer day in a full-size convertible is very pleasant and stressless, as opposed to being in some buzzy little sportscar".
So you know, I don't know!
I also think that owning and driving any old car just isn't enough for the average hobbyist, especially one with some discernment. The car has to be distinctive and fun. You've got to look good and feel good driving it.
Parm has already ruled out a number of models, the ones he's interested in are a cut above average and he likes only the best examples. And he's got enough money ($20k?) to get a nice example. He's also willing to research the cars and the market so I think he's on the right track.
With all that momentum I'd hate to see him come home with a sedan. It'll be anticlimatic and it'll look weird to his family and friends. Come home with a convertible and he'll be a hero.
That's partly because my available funds are "less available" now. But, it's more due to the fact that I know a heck of a lot more about these cars than I used to - and that's partly due to the education I've received from folks like you all in addition to my membership in various car clubs and participation in other Cadillac chatrooms. More importantly, I've done my homework with regard to what these cars really sell for vs. what they're listed for. With knowledge comes power.
Actually, that's not correct. With MONEY comes power. But what I lack in the bank account, I try to make up for with some knowledge. So far, this has kept me from making any stupid mistakes (ie., like paying $5 for a 5 cent piece of bubble gum). On the other hand, it's also kept me from driving a classic car on the weekends. Still, it costs zero to be patient and even I can afford that.
So, I think go for the 62 Vert, and be willing to pay top dollar for a top example, and be happy knowing it will always be worth at least what you paid, and everywhere you go, people will notice [and so will you] thatyou have something special.
Next to that, I'd go for a 62 Coupe DeVille. Like the one I saw at the Portland swapmeet-that gorgeous Maize color, matching leather interior, 54,000 original miles, no wear showing anywhere-simply GORGEOUS!-asking $12,500. Maybe a little high, but one could negotiate. Hey, I looked at that car for a long time.
But, I say go for a 62-whether it's coupe or vert.
A very high percentage of the Cadillacs I've seen that look very nice &/or that I'd like to pursue are located in the Northwest Territory. Does Welcome Wagon present new residents with 1962-64 Cadillacs? As a hospital promotion, are new babies sent home in a classic Cadillac?
Once again, fate has dealt me a cruel blow by planting me in Indiana.
Also, if you found an interesting car, delivery shouldn't be too expensive, and could be negotiated with the price.
But I know-I've seen some very interesting cars in my hunt, too-and they always seem to be halfway across the country-or worse, in Florida!
Interesting about Cads and the NW. I would guess California.
I drive my convertible nearly every weekend, and to run errands during the week if to a safe place. The rule of thumb I use is anything over 50 degrees outside is drivable with the top down.
Over 100 degrees, maybe not. Oh yeah, never in the rain, snow, etc. either. Rust is not your friend.
Maybe carnut's suggestion, a very clean hardtop, works better in that price range. Carnut's Impala SS is a great cruiser and just as important it's a car he's always wanted. Maybe there's a car like that out there for Parm.
And what's with this "rain" business? Good grief. man, these are not Ferraris made in numbers under 50. These are big healthy American cars, they can get WET!
Okay, slush and salt, sure, why expose the car, but these ads about "never been in the rain" are kind of amusing to me.
Water doesn't rust cars automatically. You just need to pay attention to door drains, trunk seals and the rest. It's not a big deal.
I don't think someone should be intimidated into not driving their favorite car just because it's raining. Seems too cautious to me, and a bit pretentious when the car is, after all, a big brute of a 70s model domestic car that should easily be able to handle a bit of water.
These cars are not French poodles.
To speedshift: I can't get a decent convertible for around $10? Watch me. Actually, to get a truly stunning car, you're right. But, for around $10K, I think I can get a very nice cruiser that may have a couple of blemishes I can live with (ie., perhaps needs a new top, or some interior work), but it should be a solid car and look very nice from 10ft.
No, I don't expect a 100 point show car for $10K. But, on the other hand, that's not what I'm looking for.
Why would anyone want a land yacht from the '70s? Maybe if they're the first cars you remember (why would anyone want a '56 Stude? two '56 Studes?) or if you're into wretched excess, but otherwise it seems like a clearcut waste of money. They're cheap for a reason. The market has spoken.
But I've already had my fling with cars of dubious value. I shouldn't keep others from having that pleasure.
Still, I don't think something like that would be Parm's thang!
A '61 Corvair wagon with a 327 in the back--no, it's not a convertible. But what a great ride for the family.
A '65 Bonneville with 421 and 8 lugs.
A "barn fresh" '65 GTO convertible four speed, supposedly documented. Barn fresh and ready for restoration, physically, mentally and spiritually. That's important. A car has to have its head in the right place or it's not worth restoring.
And a lot of other stuff that sold for $1500 when I was buying back in the '80s. Another reason no "classic" will be leaking fluids on my garage floor anytime soon.
As a point of clarification, there seems to be a misconception that I'm in the market for a 1970's convertible. My main area of interest is the 1960's. However, if I found a very nice '71 or '72 Cutlass convertible optioned to the max (A/C, buckets & console, factory tach, Rally wheels, etc.) in very nice condition with a ridiculously low asking price, I'd be all over it. But, that's fantasy land thinking.
While they might be nice cars for some, I just don't in vision getting excited about a LaSabre or any other GM convertible from the mid-70's. Too much plastic and shoddy workmanship for me.
That's why I'm "stuck in the 60's". Not that the workmanship of these cars was appreciably better, but they have more style in my opinion. Also, by leaning toward a Cadillac, I'm at least at the top of the food chain for that era.