Excessive posting? ... Interesting.....

[jamespowers]

1996? Didn't you mean 1966?

I would say about 1992 when the Brougham jumped the shark and went concept car weird.

 

[vitanola]

Definitely not the backward Lincoln, the really dated looking Peerless, the too short top Hispano or the out and out weird Peirce Arrow. The only one that comes close is the Packard. That Duesenberg is in a class by itself.

Dated looking Peerless? Do you know what the other auto makers were building in 1932?
1932 Cadillac V-16:

1932 Peerless V-16:

If one considers the Peerless to be "really dated looking" then one would doubtless look for the buggy-whip socket on the Cadillac. The coachwork of the Cadillac is similar in generall outline to that of the Peerless, but I personally think that the Peerless body is just a bit less fussy, and more attractive. The all-aluminum Peerless V-16 is a pretty advanced machine, with a 64 valve overhead cam engine, an all aluminum body, smooth-riding torsion bar suspension, and the lowest un-sprung weight of any machine in its class, as opposed to the old-fashion composite body of the Cadillac with its saggy wooden door-posts.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

At least through '96, they kept the same underpinnings.

I would say about 1992 when the Brougham jumped the shark and went concept car weird.

 

[Gregg Axley]

Dated looking Peerless? Do you know what the other auto makers were building in 1932?
1932 Cadillac V-16:

1932 Peerless V-16:

If one considers the Peerless to be "really dated looking" then one would doubtless look for the buggy-whip socket on the Cadillac. The coachwork of the Cadillac is similar in generall outline to that of the Peerless, but I personally think that the Peerless body is just a bit less fussy, and more attractive. The all-aluminum Peerless V-16 is a pretty advanced machine, with a 64 valve overhead cam engine, an all aluminum body, smooth-riding torsion bar suspension, and the lowest un-sprung weight of any machine in its class, as opposed to the old-fashion composite body of the Cadillac with its saggy wooden door-posts.

The Peerless was ahead of it's time.
But even then, the big 3 were pushing others out.
Essex/Hudson was another maker that experienced this.
V-16....with 64 valves? Good heavens....

 

[jamespowers]

Dated looking Peerless? Do you know what the other auto makers were building in 1932?
1932 Cadillac V-16:

1932 Peerless V-16:

If one considers the Peerless to be "really dated looking" then one would doubtless look for the buggy-whip socket on the Cadillac. The coachwork of the Cadillac is similar in generall outline to that of the Peerless, but I personally think that the Peerless body is just a bit less fussy, and more attractive. The all-aluminum Peerless V-16 is a pretty advanced machine, with a 64 valve overhead cam engine, an all aluminum body, smooth-riding torsion bar suspension, and the lowest un-sprung weight of any machine in its class, as opposed to the old-fashion composite body of the Cadillac with its saggy wooden door-posts.

Aluminum in a car body of that time?! Cheap! We al know how wonderful the early aluminum engines were and how durable they were. :rofl:
Cadillac wins again The Standard of the World.

 

[jamespowers]

At least through '96, they kept the same underpinnings.

True there is that. They kept the body on frame design. I just don't like the body they put on it. Everyhing else was fine.

 

[jamespowers]

The Peerless was ahead of it's time.
But even then, the big 3 were pushing others out.
Essex/Hudson was another maker that experienced this.
V-16....with 64 valves? Good heavens....

So far ahead that they failed the test of time. lol lol

 

[GHT]

I've always thought the Daimler machines were a might stodgy.

I just can't take umbrage with someone, who, although disagreeing with me, uses such an eloquent turn of phrase, as: Stodgy. How could I possibly disagree? I absolutely love the marque, yet have to agree, Daimlers were indeed, a mite stodgy. Perhaps it's because Daimler always lived within the shadow of Rolls Royce, yet so did Bentley, as did Lagonda and all those half forgotten marques that just couldn't compete.

 

[GHT]

At least through '96, they kept the same underpinnings.

What jumped out at me with this remark was the fact that Ford, having bought Jaguar, for well over the odds, just didn't know how to capitalise on their acquisition. Ford have never really got the "hang" of Europe.

We tax our cars, and the fuel that drives them, to excess. We also have narrow streets that were designed for the horse and carriage era, but there still remains a considerable amount of Europeans that like large cars. Ford used to have a top of the range car, called the Granada, it was very popular until Ford repeated their "Sucking on a lemon Edsel!" disaster with the last version of the Granada. It was unbelievably ugly. The subsequent falling sales led them to believe that it was big cars, not unaesthetic cars that caused the drop in sales.

How they ever came to this conclusion, I'll never know. The advent of the internet, and the subsequent online derision should have told them something, along with the clamour for either a Lincoln, or, a European derivitive, but no. Yet ford actually shared the platform of The Lincoln with Jaguar's S type. Which is where we came in. Ford didn't get it, they lost squillions over Jaguar, yet Tata of India know their market. Jaguar is once more a force to be reckoned with. Ford's success with the Model T taught them: Pile it high, sell it cheap. Maybe they just couldn't get their heads around any other concept!

 

[jamespowers]

What jumped out at me with this remark was the fact that Ford, having bought Jaguar, for well over the odds, just didn't know how to capitalise on their acquisition. Ford have never really got the "hang" of Europe.

We tax our cars, and the fuel that drives them, to excess. We also have narrow streets that were designed for the horse and carriage era, but there still remains a considerable amount of Europeans that like large cars. Ford used to have a top of the range car, called the Granada, it was very popular until Ford repeated their "Sucking on a lemon Edsel!" disaster with the last version of the Granada. It was unbelievably ugly. The subsequent falling sales led them to believe that it was big cars, not unaesthetic cars that caused the drop in sales.

How they ever came to this conclusion, I'll never know. The advent of the internet, and the subsequent online derision should have told them something, along with the clamour for either a Lincoln, or, a European derivitive, but no. Yet ford actually shared the platform of The Lincoln with Jaguar's S type. Which is where we came in. Ford didn't get it, they lost squillions over Jaguar, yet Tata of India know their market. Jaguar is once more a force to be reckoned with. Ford's success with the Model T taught them: Pile it high, sell it cheap. Maybe they just couldn't get their heads around any other concept!

Ford hasn't been able to get their heads around many concepts for a verrryyy long time now. Thy haven't done big car right for many years.
Cadillac has followed the whole lets make our cars like a Benz just like the rest too though. There are very few REAL luxury car makers any more. They are nearly all now sports car makers. :doh:

 

[AtomicEraTom]

And the LT1 was better than anything they had put in a Fleetwood for years.

I think it's an attractive car, not as attractive as the previous generation Fleetwoods, but better looking than anything they've offered since.

True there is that. They kept the body on frame design. I just don't like the body they put on it. Everyhing else was fine.

 

[1mach1]

I would be hard pressed these days to buy any luxury car. Without the badge on the vehicle, it's hard to tell who makes what. Lincoln is making an effort with the whale-grilled MK series, but it is just an expensive, ugly Ford. The days of the nice, big luxury car have past.:Cry:

 

[Gregg Axley]

I like the Lincoln grille.
But I do have to agree, there isn't anything separating them from Cadillac.

 

[jamespowers]

And the LT1 was better than anything they had put in a Fleetwood for years.

I think it's an attractive car, not as attractive as the previous generation Fleetwoods, but better looking than anything they've offered since.

The LT1 gives you what? 260 horses? Geez, they should have been able to squeeze out more than that. Although it is definitely more than my 1986. I don't think either of them are going to win any drags that is for sure.

It is fine but nothing like the previous generation.

 

[jamespowers]

I would be hard pressed these days to buy any luxury car. Without the badge on the vehicle, it's hard to tell who makes what. Lincoln is making an effort with the whale-grilled MK series, but it is just an expensive, ugly Ford. The days of the nice, big luxury car have past.:Cry:

One would think that anyone, not smoking dope, at the major car companies would realize that there is a vast untapped market for a large luxury vehicle that isn’t ugly and has reasonable performance---Ideally a 1990 type Brougham with the modern 368 V-8 that they current use in the Escalade. That would make a car that big fly and look decent. Updating the electrical would be easy. There is certainly enough room for all the modern electrical junk that they add today. Cadillac was selling 14,000 units every year even when they didn’t care that they were…..:doh:

 

[jamespowers]

I like the Lincoln grille.
But I do have to agree, there isn't anything separating them from Cadillac.

Nowdays all cars look the damned same. :doh: I want a modern version of a 59 Cadillac Eldorado

 

[Gregg Axley]

Totally rebuilt.
And in black.
http://cars.oodle.com/detail/used-1959-cadillac-eldorado-biarritz-convertible-for-sale/3506487306-saint-louis-mo/
I'd barter a bit though, I don't think it's worth the $224,900.

 

[1mach1]

Nowdays all cars look the damned same. :doh: I want a modern version of a 59 Cadillac Eldorado

Exactly! I feel like this can be done, but the designers these days.....geez. :tsk::tsk:

 

[AtomicEraTom]

That was pretty good in the 90's. The technology engine-wise has come a long way, but it's also much higher maintenance today, than the older engines.

What does your '86 have? A 307? Those were good for about 140 hp. When I went from that to my LT1, I felt like I was in a racecar!

The LT1 gives you what? 260 horses? Geez, they should have been able to squeeze out more than that. Although it is definitely more than my 1986. I don't think either of them are going to win any drags that is for sure.

It is fine but nothing like the previous generation.

 

[Gregg Axley]

That was pretty good in the 90's. The technology engine-wise has come a long way, but it's also much higher maintenance today, than the older engines.

What does your '86 have? A 307? Those were good for about 140 hp. When I went from that to my LT1, I felt like I was in a racecar!

The police package Caprice (1990) was a kick in the pants with the 350.
Some even had enough torque to chirp second.
And, if you had enough pull in the department, you could get a better chip for the car, making it capable of at least Warp 1.
But certainly not Plaid, the car was too heavy to reach that speed.