If you want to buy a closed car, why are the coupes more popular than the sedans? Thinking CDV vs. SDV. Obviously Fleetwoods are different issue. I'm glad coupes are more than sedans, because of non-conforming nature preferring a sedan it was acquired at a lower cost. 32k original paint, interior, and etc. (even radiator hoses) 1970 SDV for only $5,500, but it needed some work to make it mechanically good. The reasons my preference for a sedan:
1. Many of the Cadillac styling years, especially 1965-70 the sedan roof line is more appealing to me, especially B pillar roof line.
2. More than one passenger, no problem entering and exiting the car
3. Doors easier to deal with, plus less sag over the years.
4. Lower cost than coupes.
This is not applicable to models only offered as a two door such as Eldorado (Riviera, Toranado, Thunderbird (not 67-71) and etc. by other makes).
I don't get it either, the new sedan I bought was just a bit more expensive
than the 2 door. The sedan isn stiffer and less likely to have air leakage
problems. The only 2 door here is the FWD Eldo, that 80 Seville is just
unbearable.
I just laugh at the totally ridiculous prices bid up on some cars, they are
always 2 doors and the value is only in the minds of the bidders. To get
the real value check the 4 door version, which is seen as just some old car.
Bruce Roe
When we were in our 20s, we only wanted 2 door cars. A 4 door was an absolute no-go. Not cool. It was an old mans car.
Now that we've become old men, we like the 4 doors.
I'd love to have a '70 FWB, but have no room for it.
In 1976 when I earned my driver license in October, I was in 10th grade. The first in my class to have it, and being a planner I had saved up and purchased a 1965 Thunderbird that was my car, not my parents. I was probably one of three in my high school class who did not drive their parents LeSabre. Anyway, being first with a car and a license, there were always a lot of passengers. I was constantly moving forward in my seat to allow entrance and exit of my passengers traveling in the rear seat. At 16, I was like a 4 door seems so much better. So after graduating college, only owned 4 doors until buying my 1970 Cadillac DVC in 2005. That has been the only 2 door ever that I bought since.
I understand the primarily uncool people drove 4 doors back in the 1970's. Is that the only reason?
Chris got it in one.
4 door sedans were old peoples' cars, Station Wagons were family cars, and 2 door cars were sporty, and everyone who wanted to buy their first car, young people that is, wanted the sporty car.
I am still young, and still want a sporty car, which is why I buy a 2 door car, Coupe or Convertible.
Now, Station Wagons are cool, simply because there aren't many left, and rare is cool.
Bruce. >:D
One of my most favorite cars was a 56 Chevrolet station wagon. I could haul a lot of kids in it, or put the back seat down and haul anything that I could cram through the tailgate. I used to camp in it when I traveled while I was still in the Army.
You're right about the "coolness factor" of a 2 door, but there's something to be said about not having to get out or bend over the steering column to let people in or out of the back seat when you have a 4 door.
I've had both, and when my son was still at home, the 4 door was the best option for us. But you can still be cool in a 4 door if it's a hardtop. With the windows down, and you're flying down the road, they gotta look closely and count the handles, LOL!
In my old age, it's a lot easier to get in and out of a 2 door with those big doors. And if the brakes fail, they can be used as air brakes, you just gotta get it open first!
Quote from: The Tassie Devil(le) on February 23, 2020, 06:26:37 PM
Now, Station Wagons are cool, simply because there aren't many left, and rare is cool.
Bruce. >:D
The coolest ones I think are the 4 door hardtop wagons like Buick built back in the 50's. But I think Chrysler got in on the act with a few models too.
People not wanting to climb to get to your your back seat can be an advantage . . .
I was kind of surprised to find myself with two adult males in the back of my ETC a few years ago at the driving tour for the grand national . . . my teenage daughters complained about just riding to church . . .
I’ve always had a preference for 4 doors, especially when talking luxury cars. In many cases, a 4 door, especially a hardtop, just seems to do better justice to a big car’s lines. And while 2-doors may be more collectible, they are also much more common now at shows and events. To me a ‘59 flattop is far more interesting and unusual than a’59 coupe. And on a practical level, 4 doors are much easier if you have passengers over the age of 20 or so. My Seville is a rare exception to my preference for sedans, but I would not ask any of my adult friends to squeeze into that back seat. And the right 4 door can be very cool. My high school ride was a pretty tired ‘60 Impala flattop, but other than the kids with vans, it was about the most popular ride around; a rolling party for 7 if someone had their girl on their lap.
That’s what I need. A four door version of this.
Here ya go, Greg! 8)
Thanks Geoff
Case closed
Greg Surfas
Two door Cadillacs are for driving; four doors are for being driven in . . .
Come to think of it, that was also the traditional difference between a Bently and a Rolls, which were otherwise identical save for the hood . .
hawk
Quote from: chrisntam on February 23, 2020, 05:29:35 PM
When we were in our 20s, we only wanted 2 door cars. A 4 door was an absolute no-go. Not cool. It was an old mans car.
Now that we've become old men, we like the 4 doors.
I'd love to have a '70 FWB, but have no room for it.
This is about the gist of it. They were more "cool". How else can you explain the so called muscle car mania when most of those crapified jalopys have LESS HP that our 1965-70 Cadillacs - unless one opted for the maxed out largest displacement - in a car that had barely there brakes and NO creature comforts???
My two most liked body styles back then were and still are Convertibles and Fleetwood Broughams.
Whatever a typical young man would have bought new if money was no object, odds are that it will become a future collectible.
As a general rule, the more utilitarian the body style, the less collectible. Factors related to styling, speed and sportiness are what excite the collector car juices.
Rightly or wrongly it has always been this way and probably always will.
I think one has to look at the production and survivor numbers and market to determine current price. More 4 drs = less price. It's harder to rationalize individual styling "appeal" over time. Life things change.
A post war 4 dr was/is a "family" car, so they commanded less $ new. Usually, but not always they were the bottom models in the "driver" category. cf; "driven"; fleetwood, limo, etc. "Wagoons" were more the "big" family sedan. aka vacationmobiles and tow vehicles.
I begged the old man, to buy that new red '63 vette coupe. I pledged to ride in the back as I was the youngest, but he opted for the $300 less*, more "roomy", SS convertible. Talk about regrets...and change in the value of the dollar.
The trend changes today with the decline of sedans and the abandonment in production, because of rise of SUVs and P/Us. So that "Cadillac Kid" 4 dr is aligned with the current more multi-use utility trend.
* - less than they're asking for that NOS '58 fuel pump!!!
Quote from: fishnjim on February 24, 2020, 09:23:56 AM
I think one has to look at the production and survivor numbers and market to determine current price.
That certainly factors into it and survivorship is typically against sportier body styles (and wagons) -albeit for different reasons.
But even if that is taken out of the equation and assumed identical number of survivors exist today for each, the sportier car would still command more.
For collectability 2 door hardtops always followed the convertibles, then 4 door hardtops. For their style. Pillared coupes, sedans and wagons were considered stodgy and utilitarian.
So when many people look for a collector car they go for the car they wanted when younger, the flashy convertible or coupe. Not the sedan or wagon they settled for.
But there will always be those that go for nostalgia and want a wagon like the one the family had when they were a kid. Or a sedan that triggers a good memory.
Things in the rear view mirror are bigger than they seem
When I was young I too liked the two door models but preferred the big and heavy two door cars. After tearing up too many transmissions and differentials drag racing and squealing out I decide I had had enough.
I finally sold my very last car last month, a 91 Brougham dElegance. I lov ed that car and put more money into it maintaining it's like new appearance and mechanicals. Four door cars were a ok for me.
4 doors works for me.
Back in 85 I was in college in Iowa. I bought a 69 SDV from an older couple and I think I paid $1500. The 4 door hardtop was the best of both worlds. Easy in and out for passengers but I could burn up the highways with 4 windows down and it hardly messed up my hair. The lack of a B pillar made for what seemed like only a slight breeze inside the car. All 4 windows down in any car today is an annoying noisy proposition.
Nice Fleetwood, Kevin.
Quote from: tc76ldovert on February 24, 2020, 05:03:21 PM
snip...
All 4 windows down in any car today is an annoying noisy proposition.
Agree! Why is that??
When I was growing up, hardtop coupes were always considered “coolâ€, and sportier, be it Shoebox Chevys, or Coupe deVilles!
And when I reached my max height of 6’6â€, the longer coupe door made a huge difference too!
On my 68 Camaro SS, and 66 GTO, (both convertibles) I took them to the shop to have the seat mounted farther back, but on my 68 CDV, the stock seat has two mounting positions, (which I did not know prior to buying it) so naturally I have it mounted in the rearward position... and it’s just right! I don’t know if it’s the same way on a sedan.
Also, on my Coupe, when I have the seat all the way back, and look out the window, there’s no post blocking my view.
Just seeing this, and I'm a bit confused...but when I was shopping for mine I basically got nudged away from a non-Fleetwood sedan. The nudge was either to a CDV, Fleetwood, or Eldorado because they "looked cooler".
Please note that my instinct *was* a four-door model (probably a Fleetwood, mind you) and the Eldorado...lovely car that it is...was actually something of a "compromise" over a month or two of chasing a car that was in good shape (i.e. limited/no rust). I looked at a few SDVs but got "nudged" off of them (particularly the later-year ones, which "looked like an Oldsmobile" in the words of a friend).
(The nudge to 1970 and onward was based on expected handling as much as anything, particularly in terms of braking...though NGL the massive motor is also a draw.)
Quote from: tc76ldovert on February 24, 2020, 05:03:21 PM
Back in 85 I was in college in Iowa. I bought a 69 SDV from an older couple and I think I paid $1500. The 4 door hardtop was the best of both worlds. Easy in and out for passengers but I could burn up the highways with 4 windows down and it hardly messed up my hair. The lack of a B pillar made for what seemed like only a slight breeze inside the car. All 4 windows down in any car today is an annoying noisy proposition.
Any window down at speed is noisy.
That's what Climate Control is for. ;)
Great topic and enjoying the individual responses. I think by the mid 50's, designers were evolving designs that were long, low and and having a convertible profile with out the convertible top and without window pillars. With the advent of the "two tone" cars back in the early 50's ( yes, that was new and considered flashy), I recall my grandfather and folks his age who were appalled by the ostentation and desire by some Americans to be "show offs." A solid black car was truly considered the "norm," and, of course, transportation was practical, and without frills. SO the two door coupe was a very personal statement against the norm (think: "Rebel without a cause"). The introduction of the racing car as a roadster- "sports car," was a natural extension of that personal statement--- and then, of course, came the Thunderbird and the notion of a small, opulent "personal car" mainly designed for two. As an early boomer (1945), our XLR is hardly sensible. transportation, with two seats, and sufficient room in the truck for an overnight bag--- but to my mind, it harkens back to the day when Americans were so very practical, were largely conformist, and would never be seen in a red two seater with irridescent red paint. As my grandfather, who was born "on the other side" back in 1889 would say, "What are you trying to prove?" Happy day? James
wow . . . a downright Calvinist response to automobiles . . .
::)
Fascinating comments James! Clay/Lexi
One word that does NOT come to mind when thinking of an XLR is practical.
Mike,-- spot on-- our XLR certainly IS the most impractical car I've ever owned, but once my wife and I test drove this model, it is absolutely irresistible and incredibly refined in so many ways. And along the lines of this topic, such excesses in design and explorations of "impracticality" are certainly part of the Cadillac brand, and as DocHawk commented in a roundabout way, not part of the main stream "Calvinist American Culture" that people my age (74) were immersed in to following WWII. Happy day, James
Quote from: James Landi on March 02, 2020, 07:56:13 AM
Mike,-- spot on-- our XLR certainly IS the most impractical car I've ever owned, but once my wife and I test drove this model, it is absolutely irresistible and incredibly refined in so many ways. And along the lines of this topic, such excesses in design and explorations of "impracticality" are certainly part of the Cadillac brand, and as DocHawk commented in a roundabout way, not part of the main stream "Calvinist American Culture" that people my age (74) were immersed in to following WWII. Happy day, James
James, I'm not really in a position to comment on what's practical, having had a Miata for 5 years. We bought it new in 2001 and it was our last "new" car (traded it in late 2004 for a 2000 El Dorado convertible). But I did drive that Miata from Tampa FL to Ft Dix NJ with all my boots, uniforms, computer, etc for a 2 week. CGSC training. It all barely fit, I had to hang my uniforms behind the back seats, monitor on the seat beside me and my arms about vibrated off after about 12 hrs driving the first day, not to mention a 7 hour sun & wind burn across the left side of my face as I drove up I-95.
I did make max use of the car, leaving the 1995 Fleetwood for her, and got 30MPG+ for the entire trip.
I'd go out and get an XLR for the boss lady right now, but she likes being her niece & nephew taxi service and there are just too many issues with XLRs at present and they are not likely to ever get resolved.
Now another 2000-2002 El Dorado with a Coach Builders conversion - that's another story.
Well, wake me up when Richard Petty drives a 4 door car around the track at Daytona at 200+ mph.
I’m thinking speed, aerodynamics, maneuverability and gross weight are the factors affecting 2 door v. 4 door. I just don’t see Smokey and the Bandit hot rodding around in a ‘77 4 door Cutlass Supreme Brougham
It is for this reason that most of the old cars that have survived were 4 doors as the 2 doors got racked up along the way. (Thus increasing the inherent value of 2 door cars, lol)
Unless the kid borrowed grandma’s car and hit the railroad tracks at 60 mph and got some air.
Quote from: wrench on March 02, 2020, 10:58:16 AM
Well, wake me up when Richard Petty drives a 4 door car around the track at Daytona at 200+ mph.
I’m thinking speed, aerodynamics, maneuverability and gross weight are the factors affecting 2 door v. 4 door. I just don’t see Smokey and the Bandit hot rodding around in a ‘77 4 door Cutlass Supreme Brougham
It is for this reason that most of the old cars that have survived were 4 doors as the 2 doors got racked up along the way. (Thus increasing the inherent value of 2 door cars, lol)
Unless the kid borrowed grandma’s car and hit the railroad tracks at 60 mph and got some air.
NASCAR stopped being "stock cars" many years ago.
And that's when NASCAR died as far as I was concerned.
In the '70's, every car could be identified from miles away. Now you have to get up close and look at the name, as the badges are getting similar.
Bruce. >:D
Actually, that was my point about Richard Petty. I tell people when he retired I stopped watching NASCAR...
Anyway, I think the 2 door vs 4 door thing goes back to early stock car racing (and selling!)
“Win on Sunday, sell on Monday...â€
The large two doors are not racers. The race between a 1970 CDV and 1970 SDV would be won by the better driver, better mechanical condition, or combo of the two. It would not be won by the CDV due to aerodynamics, weight, and etc. posted as advantages of two door cars.
It is understood that the answer may be that speed, coolness and etc. may be associated with two door cars over four doors, but it is not reality on the larger vehicles.
Any suicide four door car or available only as a 4 door is probably an exception, such as a Fleetwood or 1957/8's Eldorado Brougham.
Got the answer: misconception. Hope it continues so I can buy closed 4 door cars discounted over two door vehicles.
Quote from: cadillacmike68 on March 02, 2020, 09:52:50 AM
having had a Miata for 5 years. We bought it new in 2001
I bought one new in '06, when it got just enough larger that I could fit in it (well, for short distances--I was in pain after taking it 350 miles, as my left thigh doesn't actually rest on the seat. And I put a whole through the floor mats with my heel the first week from using the clutch, and drove in socks or barefoot thereafter).
I didn't fit with the top up (less than 1,000 of the 70,000 miles on it, all in rain or heavy wind--but at 40+, you could drive through *pouring* rain without getting wet; it may have the best air pocket of all time).
It was a blast, even though it got lower and smaller every year. ::)
But I would never buy a Mazda again: transmission dropped all of its oil and fused at 40k miles, the engine went at 60k, and the rebuild at 70k :o (and that's not mentioning the other mishaps that had it in for regular warranty work, such as the oil line that got loose and sprayed the entire engine compartment. We *never* got it all out).
So why post this on a Cadillac forum?
At the moment, it's in line behind the Eldorado and the little Eldorado to get work done--there's a shop in Texas with perfectly good engines it pulls when it sticks in bigger engines. It will be a full day's work, but no more, with a friend to swap one in.
But *some* days, I scheme to stick a Northstar in it . . . (there are off the shelf kits for both ford 302 and any gm LS engines, but this would be different). On more sane days, though, I realize that the *sensible* way to get a Northstar Miata would be to take an STS with wrecked body, chop and shorten/narrow the frame, and drop the Miata body on top. Much less expensive than the *other* changes to suspension, etc., to get it to handle V8 power. (stock, "someone" was heading up the baker grade in California [sustained 15% or so], looked down after passing, and noticed it was still accelerating at 105 with the top down . . .)
And, of course, if I did the conversion, I would get a custom chrome tag in old Cadillac script the read "Miatalac" :o