Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
the Mink Test
In the mid-1960s, Cadillac performed testing un-officially described as the mink test. This involved rubbing mink swatches over all new upholstery materials, checking to see if the fur caught, discolored or became unduly worn. Further, mink-clad women were taken for 50-mile rides during which they got in & out, lounged, sat up and 'did all manners of acts' (?!?) to check compatability of materials. Any potential upholstery fabrics that didn't perform perfectly were eliminated.
Also during this period (AT LEAST- probably many years prior, can't say about after), Cadillac performed 23,000 inspection checks per vehicle, 300 as a complete car plus a 'roller test' to assure operational quality.
Any other interesting efforts by manufacturers 'above & beyond' the norm for quality assurance in the vintage years?
Also during this period (AT LEAST- probably many years prior, can't say about after), Cadillac performed 23,000 inspection checks per vehicle, 300 as a complete car plus a 'roller test' to assure operational quality.
Any other interesting efforts by manufacturers 'above & beyond' the norm for quality assurance in the vintage years?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I show these brochures to the office assistants (formerly known as secretaries) at my office and they just roll their eyes at the attire of the day. Pretty funny.
Taking those mink-clad ladies for 50-mile rides? Well, that would certainly have been an interesting job for the test drivers. I wonder if Cadillac hired models or just used women who worked for the company?
Another gem was the method used to ship the 1956 Continental Mark II from factory to dealer. To ensure quality, Ford shipped it from the factory in a fleece-lined bag.
I love looking at old brochures at the Auto Show. Parm, if you really want to get the office ladies all fired up, show them one of the "Dodge Rebellion" brochures from 1966-67 with the sexy blondes lounging all over the cars! I think Gloria Steinem would be speechless...
Well, you can see how this silliness just got worse and worse and ended up in the sorry state of domestic cars in the 1980s.
It's no wonder the Japanese and Europeans rolled right over us. It must have been as hard as hunting cows for them.
To make a leap of logic that an internal quality test equates to the overall state of a marque 20 years later is unrealistic to the point that I must assume sarcasm. A '60s Mercedes does not compare to a '60s Cadillac in appointments, refinement, styling, roadability, customization, luxury and engineering. 3 decades later it very well may be a completely different story, but when I state 'vintage' I'm not waxing nostolgic over the 1980s...
So my point was this--as Mercedes and BMW were on the way up technically and stylistically, Cadillac was already on the skids by 1968, showing heavy dry rot around 1976, and culminating in disaster with the Cimarron a few years later.
Of course, hindsight is always 20-20, and I will agree that if I were a Cadillac executive looking at one of those clunky tail-finned Mercedes of 1966, I would not have felt very threatened either---Had he driven one however, he might have realized that even in 1966 the Benz could easily outhandle and outbrake a Cadillac. Also, a Cadillac exec could not have helped but notice that these funny looking, too-expensive Benzes were beautifully built inside and out. A Cadillac is somewhat crude by comparison, especially when you get into the "depths" of the car. Externally, the 60s Cads stilll look pretty good.
Make no mistake though. Cadillac, in the 1950s, taught Benz that you can mass-produce a quality car. They took the lesson and ran with it.
Of course, in 1966, most American drivers did not want or even like a firm ride and precise handling. This would become an acquired taste. I distinctly recall many Benz buyers in the late60s/early 70s complaining about the "harsh" ride and "rough shifting" transmission---which are now perceived as "European precision", ironically enough.
Actually, they were right about the transmissions. They were neck-breakers compared to a Hydramatic, which still impresses me when I drive one from the 60s.
Never mind that at the same time Cadillac also --among hundreds of other attention-to-detail practices-- used wind tunnel testing to determine optimum HVAC venting locations, used nylon-sealed, double-cardan constant velocity U-joints to eliminate driveshaft speed variations, that the chassis had Teflon inserts at every friction point, used hard gold contact points in the electrical system, accelerator shafts were of stainless steel to eliminate sticking from road salt corrosion, piston wristpin installation was accurate to 5 one-hundred-thousands of an inch, and the engine was so perfectly balanced that it never stopped twice in exactly the same place in its cycle. In fact, Cadillacs have traditionally never required engine 'break-in' periods due to the extreme precision of their manufacture and tolerances. They were the only automotive engines to pass stringent military specifications for aircraft engines as far as manufacturing tolerances were concerned. Mercedes did not match Cadillac's precision up to this point.
A '66 Mercedes is embarassingly underpowered- a 250 sedan recorded 0-60 in 14.4 sec and the quarter mile in 20 sec @ 70 MPH. Top speed was 82 MPH... that's 3 MPH SLOWER than a '64 VW 1500! Truely- very sporting, that Mercedes. I'll bet you could... eventually... really sling that jalopy thru the corners... sort of... maybe.
Cadillacs of the same period were capable of 0-60 times in the low 9s and had top speeds in the 120 MPH range. They also had excellent roadability under all but the most severe situations, but in that Cadillac's 'severe situations' sometimes occurred at HALF AGAIN the Mercedes' velocities, I believe that's saying something of considerable note.
Car & Driver tested 4 new luxury cars side-by-side, including the '77 Coupe deVille & a '77 Mercedes 280E. The Mercedes cost more (C: $13,375, M: $16,290), had worse performance (top speed C: 108, M: 107, 0-80 C: 18.5, M: 22.2) worse braking (70-0 C: 207' M: 223') got worse mileage (C: 16-17.5, M: 15.5-16) was noisier (DB @ 70 C: 67.5, M: 72) and had worse maneuverability (turning circle C: 34', M: 37'). The Mercedes took many more years from the mid-60s than "2" to surpass the performance & engineering of Cadillac. More like 20.
MY point is not really to knock Mercedes, my point was that one cannot callously dismiss '60s Cadillacs based on '80s Cadillacs- there is no comparison. It's the same thing as proclaiming Mercedes are slower than VWs in the '90s based on the '60s-again: no comparison.
And there is also no connection between the mink test and the '80s or later. It is no harbinger of future misfortunes. Cadillac did everything right in the 50s & 60s and went the extra distance with such luxury-minded ADDITIONS as the mink test, not in SUBSTITUTION for engineering.
BTW- care to hear C&D's comments/data of the '81 Cimarron vs. the BMW??
Contrast this with a Cadillac 7 liter engine developing 340 HP and a top speed of 125 mph. So an engine almost 3 times the size and with 210 more horsepower, gives an additional 15 mph. and about 3 seconds 0-60. That's pretty inefficient. Excessive weight is a major reason, as the Cadillac is well over two tons.
They didn't need "mink tests", they needed engine tests, seems to me.
But Cadillac fiddled while Rome burned, was the problem.
As for comparing Mercedes to VW, that is actually a compliment, since any '66 VW owner could tell you that a '66 VW had a fit and finish superior to any Cadillac and the equal of any Benz. Those early VWs were little jewels when it came to paint, sealing, trim fitment, etc. You'd never see orange peel , overspray and mistmatched body panels on a VW or a Benz.
Foreign cars were FAR from perfect in the 60s but that was the turning point, right about that time. Cadillac's star never shone any brighter after the mid 60s, not even today.
I'd say the quality turning point was 1971. The '70 models were good looking, well put-together, quality tanks. In 1971 they got bigger and heavier, without really being any bigger or roomier inside. The quality of the materials seemed to go downhill too, and they were just put together much more sloppily. Even the Eldorado went downhill, magically going from sleek and sporty to pimp-mobile in record time.
However, their perception with the public really didn't start slipping until 1974, and it took a gas crisis to do that. If it weren't for the oil embargo, Mercedes, BMW, and other luxury imports would have taken years longer to gain a strong foothold in the market.
Once the fuel started flowing again, Cadillacs started selling again. And the downsized '77-79 models sold in record numbers. For a late 70's car, they were well-built too. Much more solid than the big '71-76 models, better fit-and-finish, better handling, and even better performance, as the cars themselves were downsized further than the engines.
Then we had another oil embargo, and GM relied a lot of band-aid approaches such as the Olds Diesel, V-8-6-4, Buick 4.1 V-6, their own aluminum 4.1, and the Cimarron to boost CAFE figures. Still, the things sold well, in spite of recession, quality control, horrible engines, etc.
Ironically, the thing that really bit Cadillac on the butt was when they downsized in 1985 and '86. The DeVille/Fleetwood enjoyed increased sales for a few years, but then slacked off, but the '86 downsizing almost killed the SeVille/Eldorado right then and there. The big Caddies soldiered on, but were sold in fewer numbers, probably moreso because building too many would sink the CAFE numbers, more than any failing of the car itself.
So Cadillac's downfall, to me, started in 1971, but I guess it should be a compliment that it took two gas shortages, a recession, and GM's bumbling to do it, and even then it still took nearly two decades!
As for VW quality, well you have to admit that they cheated a little with the Beetle. First off, the fenders and body have an exposed rubber bead running between them. This is going to hide any flaws or variances in the body panels. This would most likely also have been unacceptable to a Cadillac, or even a Chevy owner of the time! So would exposed door hinges. The side panels of the body also look like they tuck up under the roof panel, hiding the weld seam there.
About the only place left for uneven gaps and poor fit is the trunk, hood, and doors. Every manufacturer gets these areas wrong, even today. VW was no exception.
Shifty- I DID have 2 things wrong. My data was from 9/68 Motor Trend on a new 1968 Mercedes 250-- not a '66. And in top gear at 5000 RPM they got 82 MPH from it, but I didn't read into it enough; redline was 6300. But at 6300 it was 700 RPM past it's power peak, plus adding in drivetrain slippage and you'll get a top speed well under it's calculated theoretical of a mere 103 MPH. Probably 92 MPH was much more like it. That would be about 30 MPH slower than the Cadillac. 10 years later and the M-B was STILL slower than the much heavier Cadillac.
The'68 M-B 9:1 152 CI (2.5L) straight 6 developed 146 HP and 161 TRQ. My comparison of Mercedes to VW was in PERFORMANCE, not 'F&F'- nice bait & switch move there.
BTW- it was in last years auto industry news that Mercedes is still looking to GM for guidance in mass-production- and they freely admit so. See the article at:
http://www.detnews.com/2002/insiders/0209/05/c01-578916.htm
The '68 Benz 250 that MotorTrend tested...did that have a manual shift or an automatic? The tranny choice alone could make a few seconds difference in time.
One, I owned a 250 and I can assure you it could easily reach 100 mph and stay there all day. The 84 mph top speed is either a misprint or is based on a theoretical top speed math calculation as if the Benz were an American car, that is, wound out at 4,800 rpm. I suspect this explains their error. They never tried to actually go that fast.
Two, my data comes from the Nitske book on Mercedes, which is an impeccable source, so between Mr. Nitske and myself, Iyou can accept with assurance that a '66 250S will do what Nitske said it would and a '68 250 would even be faster. These cars were built to go hour after hour at near redline, something a Cadillac simply is not built for., and which many American Mercedes owners simply did not understand, including car magazines of the time. They drove them like Cadillacs, and did not shift the automatics manually, as they were meant to do for maximum performance. Americans were also afraid of the redline on that strange device called a tachometer, which most has never seen before.
Obviously, anyone interested in a "mink test" is not going to be running through the gears on their automatic floor shift while watching the redline on their tachometers.
You see the problem?
ANYWAY, my comments are not meant to degrade 60s Cadillacs, a car I actually do respect for what it was---but only to point out what Andre mentioned--that Cadillac management did not see, until way too late, that they were producing anachronistic cars that would soon be obsolete.
Personally, I consider the downfall of Cadillac one of the most stupid corporate management debacles ever committed in the American auto industry, right up there with Packard merging with Studebaker, another "american tragedy".
I've seen variances like that before in other tests. For instance, I have a police car book that lists Michigan State Police testing done from 1979 to 1989 (basically covering the end of an era for the Mopar fleets), and one year, 1985, stuck out as particularly bad for all the cars the MSP tested. For instance, the Mopar M-bodies, which actually got a 10 hp boost that year, saw 0-60 times worsen by about 2 seconds, and 0-100 was even worse. The Fords and Chevies saw a hit too, though. Turns out that particular year, they chose to test during an incredibly hot time of the year, and it was making the cars bog down. The next year, 1986, the performance times were all more or less back in line with what they'd been in 1984.
Another example I can think of is in 1979, Consumer Reports tested a '79 St. Regis, and got 0-60 in about 15.9 seconds. Now I had a '79 Newport with the same exact setup (318 2bbl, 2.45:1 rear end), and I'd timed it myself with a stopwatch a few times, and 0-60 was more like 12 seconds, maybe 13 on a bad day. I think CR just got a bum one!
One Mercedes characteristic on 60s cars was the automatic transmission behavior. From '62-'70 Mercedes' automatics were much like the old GM Hydra-Matic: four speeds, but with a straight fluid coupling, no torque converter. Like the old HM they shifted pretty firmly, which was jerky compared to a Turbo Hydramatic or a Torqueflite. The advantage was that the transmission didn't cut into performance as much as some slushier autoboxes, although most testers seemed to find it irritatingly jerky in casual driving. In the 70s Mercedes went from the four-speed to a three-speed torque converter box, just as GM did earlier.
I can't believe for a minute that any magazine would even use the word "handling" to describe a 60s Cadillac. "Plush", "smooth", "pillowy" "comfortable", no problem, but a high speed turn in a 60s Cadillac is a scary thing to contemplate. My god, the unsprung weight alone would kill you, as would the bias ply tires, the brake dive, etc. I'm sure a pro driver "could" get around a test track, but it wouldn't be pleasant.
I think the reason 60s road tests of European cars are so laughably wrong is that the American testers didn't know how to drive them. Remember you were being written to by rubes like Tom McCahill (funny as he was). I remember very distinctly how the German technicians would drive American customers cars during servicing, and the owners would freak out, literally. The Germans would look so puzzled "What? What?! This is the way we drive in Germany. This is how you drive a Benz!" Like talking to a wall.
Aside from complaints about the harsh shifting (though efficient) automatics, there were lots of complaints with spark plug fouling among American drivers, again because they simply would not rev the cars up.
This is one reason Benz came out with V8s in the late 60s. They did so a bit reluctantly because it really upped the price of the car.
Anyway, in any "real world" test, a 60s Benz, say on a 500 mile trip, would leave a 60s Cadillac far far behind for any number of reasons. One, legal speed limits make the 110 mph vs. 125 mph situation irrelevant; two, the Cadillac, at say at speeds of 80 mph+, would have to stop for gas at least twice as often as a Benz; three, if there were any mountain roads either up or down, the Benz would walk away from the Cadillac, and four, driver fatigue would overtake the Cadillac driver as he would be pretty sick of swaying left right up and down all day, and have to use his back and leg muscles to compensate for the car's cushy ride.
I will say though that a '66 Cadillac was a lot better than a '76 Cadillac for handling.
In the long run, the 'Trep got about 25 mpg on that trip, whereas the NYer got about 22.5. The real kicker though, is that the 'Trep is EPA-rated at 29 highway! What would a '79 NYer be rated? Maybe 16 or so?
It should also be remembered that by the standards of the middle 60s, 0-60 in 13 seconds or so with a top speed a bit over 100 mph was by no means bad. Muscle car nostalgia tends to obscure the fact that bread-and-butter American cars were not especially fast. An American compact or intermediate with a big six and automatic took around 15 seconds 0-60 and might hit 95 or so with patience. A big car with a small V-8 and automatic was usually in the 11-12 second range, and a biggie with a non-performance big block (a Chevy 396/325, for example, or a Ford 390-22bl) anywhere from 9-11 seconds 0-60.
Mid-60s Caddys were among the quickest luxury cars around. Contemporary road tests of '64 and '65 models with the new Turbo Hydramatic ran 0-60 in 8.5-9.0 seconds, which was exceptionally good (especially since even a Coupe De Ville was pushing 5,000 lbs). By comparison an Imperial or Lincoln Continental took 11-12 seconds.
So a Benz 250 was a _little_ sluggish by luxury standards, but not hideously underpowered based on what most drivers were expecting in the U.S., let alone in Europe.
For their midsized sedan tests, I think one of the quickest cars they tested was a '68 intermediate Mopar with a 318-2bbl/TF/2.76:1 gearing. 0-60 in 10 seconds flat. They did test a '68 Charger though and got 7 seconds out of it. They also hated it, IIRC!
I think one of the most pathetic tests I read in Consumer Reports was of a '77 Cutlass sedan with a 260 V-8. 0-60 took a bit over 20 seconds. They were comparing it to a downsized Impala with a 305, a Monaco/Fury (probably with a 318) and an LTD-II (prob a 351?) I think they had a Matador in there, too. I forget how the others did, but that sad 20-second 0-60 time just stuck in my head!
And I question whether the Mercedes would be a better long-distance car than a Cadillac in those days. First, most of the interstate highways were fairly new in those days, so the Cadillac's softer ride wouldn't have led to that much tiresome bobbing and weaving. If anything, the firmer ride of the Mercedes would have been more tiring. Not to mention higher levels of wind and road noise, which wear me out much faster than anything else. And don't forget that the Cadillac driver would have had enjoyed the far superior comfort provided by automatic climate control - at a time when Mercedes was probably proud of having an effective windshield defroster. (Unless this road test were happening in perfect, 60 degree weather.) Not to mention the Cadillac's cruise control, which would have eliminated fatigue with the driving leg. I don't think Mercedes even offered it.
For that matter, many of the comfort and convenience devices perfected by Cadillac - climate control, power door locks, power windows, power seat, cruise control, tilt-telescope steering wheel, AM/FM stereo - were derided by import enthusiasts at the time as silly and frivilous. Today, of course, every car - including Mercedes - offers them.
As for the superiority of Mercedes engines - I recall reading that Mercedes engines at this time were prone to blowing head gaskets. This when a Cadillac's engine and transmission were considered virtually bulletproof.
And the Cadillac engine's greater size wasn't just for performance. First, the great majority of luxury car buyers in the late 1960s expected their cars to be big and heavy. (Lots of them still do - witness healthy sales of the Escalade, Navigator, Land Cruiser and Range Rover. For that matter, the Mercedes S-Class and BMW 7-Series are hardly featherweights.)
Second, Cadillac needed a bigger engine to power conveniences such as air conditioning, power steering, power windows, etc., that weren't even available on many "luxury" imports at that time. And if those options were available on the imports, they were unreliable and ineffective.
So, even from the vantage point of 2003, I'd still consider the Cadillac to be a better luxury car buy in the late 1960s. I disagree that, by then, Cadillac "was on the skids." Smug and complacent - yes. But Cadillac didn't hit the skids until the early 1970s.
I dunno about MB's 60s engines, but it is true that the Cadillac V-8 was one of the best American engines of the period in reliability, refinement, and efficiency. The 1964-1967 429 was surprisingly light, too -- it had a dry weight of 595 pounds, which is only 60 pounds heavier than a Chevy 283, 90 pounds lighter than a Chevy 396/427, and a whopping 155 pounds lighter than Lincoln's 430/462. Not bad at all for a 7 liter cast-iron engine.
A realistic 0-60 time for a '66 Caddy would be 10 seconds or a bit more. I feel I could get a '66 250S to do 0-60 in about 12.5 on a two-way average. Let's say I can't be certain but I'd bet on it, and I'd bet against a stock '66 Caddy doing a 9 second run on a two-way average.
A/C? No contest. GM had that down pat.
But comin' down the mountain with drum brakes and bias tires and 4,500 pounds while trying to race a Mercedes with disk brakes and radials and 3,100 lbs would be fun to watch.
Actually I think Cadillac went on the skids in 1959. The sacrifices to styling over function turned a corner right then and there. It really never got better after that until the 1990s.
You have to remember that "skids" is relative. It depends on how high a height you started with . And at one time, in prehistoric days, Cadillac was very very high. We aren't talking Nash here.
If a drunk sobers up and becomes a shoe salesman, we rejoice; if a college professor does that, we lament. So I'm saying that being a shoe salesman in 1966 wasn't good enough for a name like Cadillac.
Maybe it's because I'm old enough to remember the glory days as a kid, when Cadillac's name was like gold. So it could be a generational prejudice. I held out until around 1971, when I gave up a very clean 1964 Cadillac. That's the last one I ever owned. Of course, as an appraiser, I get to drive the old ones all the time. I'd say my favorite was a 1955 coupe or the '49 fastback.
As for the handling, having not ever experienced any of these cars in their contemporary timeframe, it's hard for me to make a personal judgment. I learned to drive on a VW Rabbit and I currently own a Honda Prelude with four-wheel steering, so even cars that were heralded as decent handlers in their day (a Valiant, for example) seem barge-like to me...
Mercedes pulled away from Cadillac in the 1970s by strengthening its core attributes (great braking and handling, structural rigidity) while making its cars more palatable to a wider audience. It did this by adopting better air conditioning and more power assists, while also making its cars more compatible with American driving conditions and habits.
Cadillac, on the other hand, failed to grasp what made Mercedes appealing. It also either abandoned those qualities that had made it special (reliability, a higher level of workmanship) or let its formerly unique attributes (luxury features and refinement) be matched by cars from lesser marques. By 1974 there wasn't a good reason to buy a Cadillac instead of a Chevy Caprice or Oldsmobile Delta 88.
Cadillac played the luxury violin way too long, to where their commercials became a parody of themselves. You know, Jeeps were crashing through creeks, and Mercedes were screaming down the autobahn, and Fords and Chevys were racing in NASCAR, but you look at 60s and 70s Cadillac commercials and you have to wonder what kind of audience they were thinking they were talking to (probably an audience that couldn't hear the commercial anymore).
I remember thinking when the Toronado first came out, and then the Eldo, that something exciting was happening, although I was too young to know exactly what that might be.
But these cars turned sour on us. I guess I wanted a 1976 Cadillac to be more like a 1996 Cadillac.
I revisited a '76 Cadillac recently just to see if my prejudices were unwarranted. Of course, looking at it with modern eyes, the assessment wasn't very flattering. Maybe in 1976 it was adequate but you can still see Cadillac's pending doom in the 80s in the '76 model.
Again, hindsight is always 20-20 I guess.
I hear the points well made about the Chevy/Plymouth/etc, but these cars were hardly competition with the Mercedes, and these same cars could ALSO be had with over 400 HP with Super Stock options.
According to the article, Mercedes 'bench-ran' their engines up to 2 hours before installation. Cadillac at the same time ran theirs on a dynomometer on average between 15 to 20 minutes. 'Breaking-in' of Cadillac's engines was totally unneccessary due to extremely precise manufacturing tolerances, and they could be driven at top speeds indefintely, right off the showroom floor. The Cadillacs that placed 2nd in the '71 and first in the '72 Cannonball Run were indeed literally 'right off the showroom floor'. Caddy bested Mercedes yet again in those competitions, and these were the "on-the-skids" early 70s models everyone is so down on here. Quality may have been lower than previous years, I don't know, but powertrains were still bulletproof & formidable performers.
Cadillac general manager Harold Warner was quoted (1960): "The only reason for lengthy running-in these days is because you didn't build the engine well enough to begin with." Very true.
I could go into much deeper detail regarding some of the many machining operations done with the 'prime directive' of precision manufacturing. The sheer excellence of Cadillac's of the '60s is often overshadowed by those 'the grass is always greener' types who don't find one of the world's finest luxury cars of the time to their particular 'enthusiast' tastes.
It's mainly obvious in the roofline and the rear doors, which look longer on a C-body than a B-body, reflecting a bigger back seat. I always thought that 126.3" wb model was just a B-body with an extra long hood and front fenders. Been ages since I've seen one, though, so I'm drawing a mental blank.
The reason a Cadillac engine from the 60s was only run for 20 minutes was because it was not a precision engine. You cannot run a precision engine at max RPM when it is new, at least not back in the 1960s. Even now it's a bit risky.
This is why racing engines are built to a loose tolerance, so that they can be run up quickly and hard.
Also, Cadillac, like GM and the other Big Three, ran their engines briefly on a dyno to see if they met the minimum HP standards. If they did, they drove them into the marshalling yards. If they didn't, they pushed them into another area to be torn down to see what the problem was. The brief running time had nothing to do with "precision". Quite the opposite. An engine was either "good enough" or not, and most Cadillac engines were plenty good enough.
Benz at the time was thinking more along the lines that the Japanese were thinking, which was--let's build the car more carefully to begin with, since it takes as much time to build a bad car as a good one. The Big Three were only thinking in terms of the speed of production, not the quality, as they were, in the 1960s, in a seller's market with not very much competition. I'm sure Cadillac execs thought that Benz engines were puny little things, unsuitable for their big cars. And they were absolutely right.
I remember touring GM plants in the early 70s, and engine building was a pretty slam-bang affair. I recall seeing pistons being driven in with large wooden hammers.
A Benz engine of the 60s needed 2 hours or so running in because it was built to higher tolerances than a cast-iron Cadillac block, as it had to run at much higher rpm its entire life. You cannot run a '60s CAdillac engine at 5000 rpm all day long, you will damage it. It isn't built for that internally.
The proof that this is so, aside from the luxury of just taking both engines apart, is to notice that per cubic inch, the Benz engine is much more efficient. It is precision that can give a small engine this advantage.
This is why, for instance, a Honda S2000 sports car is really not that much slower than a Corvette, the latter with an engine of 3 times the size.
This is not to suggest that a 60s Benz engine belonged in a Cadillac, or vice-versa. Both engines would be horribly unsuitable for each other's cars and goals.
Last of all, Benz was building a car for Europe. A Cadillac of those days was too inefficient to run in Europe, and too large. This is why Benz later built smaller engine versions of its US models and stripped down versions for European tastes and budgets.
Bascially, a 1969 Cadillac is no more advanced than a 1949 Cadillac, nor any more precise or well built.
This is the genius of American production. Built fast, built well enough to do the job, built in large numbers, and a good value for the money. Obviously a winning formula that still works for us in trucks, SUVs, muscle cars, but not much luck with it in luxury autos or entry-level compacts.
1)Per Mr Shiftright's comments they were mass produced and probably didn't have exceptionally close tolerance except compared to other mass-produced engines of their time.
2)If tolerances were in fact exceptionally close cylinder walls might scuff more readily if they were not broken in carefully.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm no expert on Caddy yaks.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
The facts remain- Cadillac outperformed Mercedes in the 50s, the 60s and into the late 70s in almost every criteria of consumer focus, yet some people still try and pull the modern day 'perception blanket' back 3 or 4 or 5 decades, fooling themselves that what may be now always was then. "Philosophy" does not assure "reality".
- - - - - - -
The only C body I am aware of is the Fleetwood Sixty Special. In 1970 it's wheelbase was an amazing 133", but at least you got freestanding footrests & tray tables in the rear seat with the extra length. The Series 75 limos rode 149" wheelbases (in '70 & for many years) and were the only D bodies.
While Cadillac was on the low-end of 'mass-production' in the '60s (all production was still in one plant), that does not mean measurable superior results cannot be obtained & sustained. After all, the best human hand-finishing cannot equal the precision machine tool, either in initial accuracy or consistancy. Read over my posts above- as Dave Berry says "I am not making this up".
Here's the text from a 1968 Pontiac Owner's Manual:
"We recommend the following- Avoid sustained high speed driving during the first 600 miles as shown below:
1st 200 miles - limit speed to 50 MPH
2nd 200 miles - limit speed to 60 MPH
3rd 200 miles - limit speed to 70 MPH
Care should be exercised when operating in lower gears to avoid high engine speeds ususally caused by rapid acceleration during the break-in period."
Here's the text from a 1972 Buick Owner's Manual:
"Limit speed to a maximum of 65 MPH during the first 100 miles with moderate stopping & starting. After the first 100 miles, speeds may be increased gradually as mileage accumulates, but up to 500 miles avoid driving for extended periods at any one speed."
Here's the text from a 1966 Cadillac Owner's Manual:
"Your new Cadillac is ready for all normal driving just as you receive it from your dealer. Precision manufacturing techniques have prepared it for the road and a formal break-in period is not required."
Don't you think it rather unlikely that Cadillac -nearing 'mass-production' as it was- would risk financial ruin with massive warranty costs & horrendous publicity associated with broken-down & oil-burning new engines just so they could lie about the break-in period????
Well beyond the 3 random Owner's Manuals I happen to have handy- Cadillac's no break in period is well documented, and the reason is superior machining techniques.
What do Mercedes Owner's Manuals say???
jrosasmc: In the 1960s, GM deliberately held Cadillac production below demand, which boosted used car values. A quality product with attractive features and styling, combined with production held below demand, resulted in a car with great resale value and a golden public image. Unfortunately, by the 1970s GM forgot that formula.
This may be true, but an S2000 has to be revved up to levels that would make a Corvette puke its guts out before it makes any power, while a Corvette is melting down asphalt and wasting tire life in the lower end of its rev range. And in stop and go city traffic, the S2000's engine would probably be about as exciting as a base Honda Civic. And considering the heavy cars I like to drive, all that low end grunt is a neccesity.
A Cadillac V8 from the 60s is just a normal everyday cast iron V8 like any other, and compared to a Benz, the casting work is rougher and the machined tolerances are looser. You've heard the term "blueprinting", and how you get more power from an engine when you do that? What that really means is just cleaning up all the roughness and imprecision in an engine such as a 60s V8.
Actually, sometimes this wood-stove simplicity solves problems far more brilliantly than the complexity-obsessed Germans could have (Chevy's pressed rocker arms are strokes of genius, even if they are cheap and ugly--they work!).
The Cadillac owner's manual, by the way, should be taken for what it was meant to be, a guidebook for mature drivers. Obviously "normal driving" means normal for a 55-60 year old driver in this case, don't you think?
The very *beauty* of an American V8 of the 60s was that it was built fast and loose. Unlike say Ferrari or Mercedes, both of which had rather "narrow engineering", an American V8 was extremely tolerant of deviation in manufacture and deviation in settings and adjustments. A Cadillac V8 will run at a wide range of point gap settings or valve clearances or grades of gasoline or types of oil or heat ranges of spark plugs---IT DOESN"T CARE!--, but a Benz or Ferrari will not, and will get very fussy. This liberalty in American engine building often results in better reliability for the American V8 of those times, but not necessarily better endurance under high speed. America tried to win LeMans for 40 years, off and on, but couldn't because it didn't have engines strong enough for 24 hours at the max. Ford finally did it, packed up and went home, and it didn't translate onto the assembly line.
Europeans were substantially ahead of us in building high speed engines in everyday production cars in the 60s.
Reasons? Nothing to do with brains. Their fuel was expensive and their factories all bombed out. They started in 1946 with a clean sheet while we kept building updated versions of 1939 Buicks until the 1980s. Cubic inches = torque. What Americans are building now are basically European cars of 15-20 years ago, I mean in concept and execution, not literally.
PS: Even a 1968 Toyota Corona engine, if the dirty truth be known, is better made than a comparable year Cadillac and just about as good as a Benz, if I dare utter that in public--in fact, they are shockingly high quality. I was amazed when I took apart the first one. No junk in that engine.
I don't mention that to be mean, but only to illustrate that you can't tell about an engine until you disassemble it sometimes. Like the folks who say "Oh, a Porsche engine is basically a hot rod VW engine". Well, lay them both out on a bench and it becomes immediately apparent even to the novice that that concept is entirely wrong.
From the very beginnning Cadillac used Johansson checking blocks: the 'B' was accurate to 8 one-millionths of an inch, the 'A' to + or - 4 one-millionths and the 'AA' to = or - 2 one-millionths. The latter were only used to check the 'A' blocks, kept in temperature-controlled environments and never touched by human hands.
Cadillac engines are factory blueprinted beyond the capabilites of any restoration shop. The shops simply do not have the machinery investment to duplicate -much less surpass- factory specs. And I have been in high-performance engine rebuilder shops and seen how they work.
Again- Cadillac's average owner age in the 50s and 60s was assuredly lower than even today's and they were driven as hard as any other car for the most part. Nevertheless, no manufacturer would risk the publicity & warranty payouts in case even a small portion DID drive it very hard right from the start, especialy for a policy that was NEVER advertised. It's simply fact, tho apparently an unpopular one here.
'American V8s' are not the same thing as 'Cadillac V8s'. The Cadillac-engined Allard did finish 3rd at LeMans in 1950- so I guess it WAS strong enough to finish, eh? Of course Cadillac did not actively-back competition efforts, so their infrequent results there are no measure for their ABILITY to compete.
This is the door panel of a '75 Eldorado convertible. Actually, it wouldn't be bad except for that fancy-schmancy molded wood-look plastic around the pull-handle.
In all fairness, everybody was guilty of tacky extravagances like this in the '70's, but for some reason Cadillac really started to excel in "out-gaudy-ing" the rest!
Truthfully though, the lack of money and garage space would keep me from buying one of these moreso than a bunch of tacky plastic (I actually kinda like the '75-76 Eldo 'vert and '75-78 coupes), but I still just have to ask...what the heck were they thinking??! ;-)
Just for comparison, here's an interior shot of a '75 Toronado. It doesn't show the entire door panel as clearly, but from what I can see it looks more tasteful than the Eldo's...
Of course, the color might have something to do with it, too!
Hey! That's gen-u-ine 100% real plood your badmouthing! That's some high quality work right there. Yessiree, Bob, some right fine plood on that car!
I'm curious - I've owned several brand-new Honda Civics, and most recently purchased a brand-new Honda Prelude. The only "breaking in" instruction I was given by the dealer was to avoid running the engine at the same speed for any length of time during the first 500 miles.
When I asked about keeping the car under a certain speed, he said that wasn't a concern - just don't run it at a CONSTANT speed for any length of time during the first 500 miles. I always thought Hondas had precision-built engines, so why didn't the dealer give me a warning about not immediately running a new car at high speed?
Oh man...I need a beer.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I guess you can make sort of an exception (in terms of design and materials) for solid lifter Chevrolet engines (L78/L89/L88/LS6/LS7/ZL1/L72 and LT1/Z28/whatever in the heck those 325 horse 327s are called) at least in those cases you get forged cranks/rods/pistons and some thought given to head/intake design. I never thought of this stuff being bolted together with loving care, though (or lasting particularly long).
With improvements in metallurgy, I wonder how many miles you can expect out of late model SBC with early peripherals (carb mainly)? Advances in ring, main bearing, cylinder wall materials are bound to make quite a bit of difference...on the other hand, I don't doubt that a lot of modern longevity is due to tightly controlled air/fuel mixture and spark.