I have been shopping roadtrip barges- this year will be our 5th anniversary so it would be neat to do another giant roadtrip like we did for our honeymoon. This time I want a road sofa, rolling couch, a pavement yacht... and probably an old one because why not.
So far these two Cadillacs have caught my eye:
What do I need to know about these? How much can I expect to spend to get them roadworthy? If I buy something in the spring I'll have a few months to get it ready. Thanks in advance!
Paging Stampie...
The '62 has more class, the '68 has the newer engine. It's easier to find parts for the newer (472/500) engine family in my experience, but I'd rather be looking at the '62 both inside and out.
They took advantage of the deep GM parts bin, but there will be some Cadillac specific parts. I think most of those are related to the engine internals and the body. If you're willing to drive one that looks - well, like those - you can probably avoid the latter. A full set of shocks for mine cost me $90.
IMO they are an excellent value for money for classics.
I will mention that this car cost me about the same as your '62.
https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/why-nothing-got-done-on-the-mg-today/161708/page1/
60-62 had an earlier engine that's considered very reliable. The 63-67 had an oil pump that used the timing cover as it's housing. Those will wear and lose pressure. 68-69 had the 472s which as Kieth pointed out are easier to get parts for and are considered the most reliable. I think 65 was the first year of the th400 trans. They had their own bellhousing until 67. After that was a BOP bellhousing. Pre 68 was switch pitch if the trans is still original.
Now styling ... IMHO the earlier the better. Fins got smaller and smaller. Perfect I think is 61 with the lower fins. 68 was the last year of what people consider 60s styling. 69 had a much more modern styling.
Edit - if you get the 62 I have a set of roller rockers for it cause well you know you want all the cam.
Stampie (FS) said:60-62 had an earlier engine that's considered very reliable. The 63-67 had an oil pump that used the timing cover as it's housing. Those will wear and lose pressure. 68-69 had the 472s which as Kieth pointed out are easier to get parts for and are considered the most reliable. I think 65 was the first year of the th400 trans. They had their own bellhousing until 67. After that was a BOP bellhousing. Pre 68 was switch pitch if the trans is still original.
Now styling ... IMHO the earlier the better. Fins got smaller and smaller. Perfect I think is 61 with the lower fins. 68 was the last year of what people consider 60s styling. 69 had a much more modern styling.
The interior styling changed quite a bit in 1967, it became far less delicately designed.
Bob Seger's '60 Cadillac did 120mph crossing Nebraska.
The ZZ Top boys liked to ease down the road in new Cadillacs but since there were 5 of them and some of them smoking Lucky Strikes I put this in a 60's Cadillac.
I approve of these cars.
I like the later one. A coworker picked up a S CA coup de ville 1969 I think about 10 years ago. Baby blue with a white vinyl top. It was super cool.
Hope you find and redo a sweet one!
This thread is relevant to my interests. I'm entertaining the same thoughts re: 60s land barge roadtrip vehicle, and a Caddy is certainly a possibility. Budget will be tight, but I can dream, can't I?
The 62....
Satin blue, whitewalls, chrome caps and bags....
Do it. Do it. Do it. Do it. Do it.
I had a 62 almost exactly like the one you pictured. Someone had shaved the door handles and painted it flat black. But the 390 under the hood had 560,000 miles on it. With the exception of leaking oil at every single gasket, it ran great. I drove it from L.A. to Vegas and it took 5 quarts and a really bitchin smoke screen. Then I promptly lost it in a bet in Vegas, so now it's someone else's problem.
Parts are still available for the early 60s stuff, but they don't really have any forward compatibility. Starting in '64-67 they started drinking the GM kool-aid, and by 68 they were pretty much homogenized - BOP bellhousing patterns, Qjets and Carters, etc.
The 472/500 is about the oldest you would want to go for easy parts availability, but I prefer the early 60s stuff. It is certainly possible to drop a 500 in an older caddy, but it's far from a direct swap IIRC.
I like the 1962 better, but it does have the old four speed superHydramatic transmission. They were a good unit (I had one in my old Pontiac convertible), but if they do go wrong parts are hard to find and people who can repair them are even harder to find.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Yeah and even the 67 to 68 cut over changed stuff like the 68 didn't get chrome trim on the interior A pillars.
Dad had a 1959 Eldorado Convertible. That car had everything. Everything! I loved the wonder bar Radio. AM naturally. Air bag suspension ( factory ) even had a gasoline powered preheater. Auto dim/bright The six of us had plenty of room.
4000 mile trip wore the near new tires right down to the cords. Never got much over 5000 miles out of the best tires and when he was tight it got recaps which were sometimes good for 2000 miles. Tune ups every 2500 miles oil change 1500miles ( with the good oil, $.35 a can stuff ! )
I saw this one at Cruisn' the Coast a few years ago. As if it wasn't already long enough I guess it needed the Continental kit.
So a lot of what I'm getting here is, while the '62 is cooler and may work, the '68 (and later) would be a better choice for being able to repair in the middle of nowhere? I'm not exactly planning to restore the thing, this would be a fix and drive and probably fix a few more times during the drive sort of deal.
I'm not opposed to bringing spare parts, looks like there is a decent amount of stuff on RockAuto for the '62.
I'm not sure the "middle of nowhere" repair is going to be drastically different. It'll either be a generic GM part used from 1960-1988, or it'll be Cadillac specific in which case you'll be ordering it online. Maybe the carb as Curtis has pointed out, but you can probably install a later carb on the '62 if you want. IIRC I did that on my '66 which runs a close relative to the 390.
Honestly I'd go for the 62. There's not much to go wrong. Keep spare points, coil, and condenser or put a Pertronix ignition in and keep a spare points, coil, and condenser. While I'm thinking about it make sure the radiator cap is the factory correct rating. My old 60 had a higher pressure cap and an old Caddy guy told me to put a 13psi? factory rated one in. No more problems. Update the brakes to dual circuit. Should take a 67 booster and MC with mild modifications to the booster bolt holes. Check on drum availability but I think there's enough places you can find them. No matter what you get here's a list of venders. Somewhat vetted but you'll be able to find anything on this list.
http://www.modifiedcadillac.org/forum/index.php/topic,5742.0.html
The 62 may already have dual circuit brakes - this came up when we were talking about the brakes on mine last year.
Pertronix is a no-brainer. The only time I've had to use my spare points after installing a Pertronix is helping out someone else who hadn't installed a Pertronix ;) And now I'm trying to remember if I ever installed one in the blue car, hmm...
Probably way above budget but oddly I feel a great desire https://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/cadillac/fleetwood/2303895.html
In reply to Rons :
The big problem with a 59 is that they are just hideous. Sorry but that's my option and I'm entitled to it according to the Dude.
You are also correct. The stylistic jump from 1959 to 1960 was amazing. Like going from Kim Kardashian to Keira Knightly.
This is probably blasphemy and I'll take some heat for it, but if it were me I would get the 62 and build a smooth LSX torque monster to swap into it with a modern trans. Best of all worlds. Tons of style (literally), much better performance than the original, and dead reliable. No, I am not a purist in the least. If something works better, regardless if it comes from a Yugo or an Edsel or a Trabant, I'll use it, because why wouldn't I? :shrug:
According to ZZ Top, you can comfortably fit a fine fox in front, and 3 more in the back.
JBinMD said:This is probably blasphemy and I'll take some heat for it, but if it were me I would get the 62 and build a smooth LSX torque monster to swap into it with a modern trans. Best of all worlds. Tons of style (literally), much better performance than the original, and dead reliable. No, I am not a purist in the least. If something works better, regardless if it comes from a Yugo or an Edsel or a Trabant, I'll use it, because why wouldn't I? :shrug:
You wouldn't be the first. There's an acre of room under hood, but the tunnel is small. Fitting that trans is a challenge to my understanding.
I'd love to do an EV conversion on one.
Stampie (FS) said:In reply to Rons :
The big problem with a 59 is that they are just hideous. Sorry but that's my option and I'm entitled to it according to the Dude.
Unless its a wagon, has a siren on it, and nuclear reactors stored in the back
You'll need to log in to post.
