Vinyl Tops a Curse for Cadillac?

[BJM]

As some of you know, I do several searches a week for Cadillacs, up to 2002. The last year for the Eldorado. I even recently looked in the 1994 to 2000 DeVilles.  I did not want to piggyback on Joe V's Continental Kit thread. It takes me about "2 seconds" to find a car or many more from the modern post factory vinyl roof period with what must be dealer installed faux convertible, vinyl style roofing on Cadillacs.

These are so distasteful to me!  I found these 2 examples in less than a minute -

https://desmoines.craigslist.org/cto/d/2001-cadillac-deville/6716525623.html

https://desmoines.craigslist.org/cto/d/cadillac-deville/6716470833.html

So to my knowledge, the Germans and Japanese never bought into the faux roof craze.  I certainly think many Cadillacs look fine with them in the 3 box era up to approximately 1985ish, with Fleetwoods looking OK through about 1991. 

But after that there were no or minimal factory installed "vinyl" roofs.  The last generation of Fleetwoods with the LT1's should never have had them.  That ship had sailed and Cadillac should have 100% transitioned to "slick roof" as we refer to them. 

By continuing well into the 2000's with these silly installed roofs, Cadillac dealers were trying to capture as many loyal old timey customers for ONE last sale, that they could.  It cost them dearly up against better more comprehensive clean sheet designs from Lexus, Mercedes, BMW, and Acura.   Yuppies were watching! 

When I set my search up, to go to 2002, and see one of these silly faux roofs, I quickly move on. I don't even bother looking to see if the car has low miles and excellent care.  I often wondered - what happens at a judged meet to accommodate these cars?  Do members even bother showing up with one?  Are you a member with one and can you explain the appeal of paying extra to have a faux roof put on a perfectly good Cadillac? 

Seeing so many, as I do, has led to me believing this trend had a major negative aspect on youth sales of Cadillacs that are now taking years to overcome.

[Big Apple Caddy]

Faux roadster/carriage/cabriolet (whatever you want to call them) roofs were installed by some dealers because it allowed them to add high markup items to the sticker price and then show big discounts on paper and in ads.  Other high markup aftermarket items included things like gold trim packages, custom grilles, custom wheels and tires, trunk racks, and continental kits.

I have seen import luxury sedans with aftermarket "roadster" roofs too but they're more rare.

[Joe V]

When I set my search up, to go to 2002, and see one of these silly faux roofs, I quickly move on. I don't even bother looking to see if the car has low miles and excellent care. 

Full agreement here on the faux convertible roofs.  I just don't get it.  Maybe the ultimate was a faux convertible roof with a continental kit!

Anyone have any dealer sheets showing original costs of either?

[67_Eldo]

The appeal of either the faux-convertible or the aftermarket vinyl roof has apparently never completely vanished. I see relatively "new" (2000 and later) Cadillacs and Buicks sporting those in my neck of the woods. There was even an XLR on Craigslist for quite a while that "featured" a vinyl roof! Yipes!

Even in the days before vinyl roofs gave me just cause to hate them, I didn't like them. The only styling trend I care for less is the addition of huge wheels.

Those tops and wheels cost quite a bit of money. Why waste the cash on crap?

[Barry M Wheeler #2189]

When they first came out, in about 1964 or so, Tutwiller Cadillac in Indy could not install them fast enough on earlier model Cadillacs to "match" the new ones on the showroom floor and on the streets.

When I was selling Cadillacs in 1993-1995, it cost us about $1300 to install a roof on a SDV. We did this on the "square" Buick Centuries. I knick-named them "The Little Jewel." I remember we did a burgundy one with a tan top and trunk rack and parked it on the grass out front. It sold within a half an hour late on a Friday afternoon.

Usually we picked a tan SDV with a brown top, or white with navy. We usually only did about one at a time on the lot. I don't think we ever did one of the "new" Sevilles or Eldorados. (Conservative Indiana.) Or didn't do LeSabres or Parks. 

[Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621]

The factory discouraged the practice of dealer installed aftermarket items and so forth.  The quality of this stuff was never up to factory standards which meant it would deteriorate or become defective long before it should have, plus the fact some of these items were not always in the best taste, in the factory's  view. For these reasons, the factory felt it reflected badly on its products and in most cases, they'd be right.

There is zero comparison between a genuine factory installed ASC Cabriolet roof and an aftermarket dealer installed top. The former was ~ a $1,500 option; the latter cost the dealer ~ $500 and that is what you got - a  seam-popping, thread pulling piece of garbage roof job that the customer was charged the full $1,500  because they never knew the difference (at least at first).

There should have been a lawsuit filed over those "Crapriolet" tops.  As far as I'm concerned, installing that garbage on a Cadillac and passing it off as the real thing was far more grievous offence than installing an Olds 350 engine in a Cadillac ever could hope to be!!!!     

[cadillacmike68]

I like the factory padded vinyl roofs, especially on Fleetwood Broughams, but I have NEVER liked any aftermarket fake tops. My 1995 and 1996 Fleetwood Broughams' tops have held up very well.

[BJM]

Those tops and wheels cost quite a bit of money. Why waste the cash on crap?

That was one of my curiosities.  Why did these sell so well and why did buyers want them so bad? As we see in Barry's post, they did not last long.   We would need to hear from a buyer as to why they wanted one of these.  WE all agree they are silly.  Eric says the factory discouraged the practice BUT did Cadillac penalize a dealer, somehow, for authorizing or facilitating these roofs?  They should have, especially in that time frame when Lexus and Germany gained market share. 

It's crazy.  Sometimes in a CL search with parameters:  CADILLAC  1990 TO 2005, any price, I will see 25 Cadillacs, all models, with 7-8 or more faux roofs. 

Dealers, as they say, won the battle but lost the war. 

[67_Eldo]

Kansas City is, I believe, the second-largest car-producing burg in the nation. For many years we've had huge GM and Ford plants. So we've got a lot of ex-auto-factory workers floating around.

A couple of those guys hung out with the auto-body classes I took last year. They were on hand when I discovered my Eldorado's bugaboo.

I'm stomping around the shop repeating "Why? Why? Why?" ad infinitum. Of course, the anti-GM contingent claimed that GM cars (including Cadillac) of the 60s and 70s weren't built to last more than five years. Therefore the cars were assembled with the cheapest-quality components. And GM vinyl (and sheet metal) happened to be the cheapest of the cheap. I disagreed.

Everybody, however, *did* agree that GM's window-channel designs during that span were exceptionally prone to window-channel rust. The most convincing explanation I heard was that GM (not just Cadillac) typically riveted on the front- and rear-window trim clips *before* the first layer of primer was applied. That meant that no rustproofing material had a chance to get in between the bare-metal gap between the clip and the top sheet metal. Those junctions began to rust as soon as the car rolled off the assembly line. Vinyl made the situation worse because it helped trap more of the moisture in that un-primer-ed gap. Slick-top cars rusted too, but vinyl tops provided the perfect environments for rust to rip along unnoticed.

Another of my "why" questions was "Why would somebody buy a vinyl top?" One part of the answer is obvious: Vinyl tops were in fashion for a while, particularly on the more squared-off designs. But these guys also claimed that GM promoted vinyl tops because, in the factory, a vinyl-topped car didn't require nearly the prep work that a slick-top car did. This put more $$ in GM's pocket.

Of course, GM had quality control. If a car's top -- slick or vinyl -- hit a QA station looking like garbage, that car would be sent back to the auto-body station for a rework. (A car was typically given three reworking chances. If it wasn't "right" at the end of the third rework, it was scrapped or disposed of through non-retail channels.) But a vinyl-topped car was usually only primer-ed underneath: GM didn't fully paint a car and then apply the vinyl. When a vinyl-topped car rolled down the line, the body folks would have applied glazing putty to smooth out minor dips or welding marks, just as they did on slick tops. But they didn't have to be as meticulous overall with a vinyl-bound car because the vinyl did a great job of covering up minor imperfections in the top's sheet metal.

According to these guys, it took much less time on average to get a vinyl-topped car "right" than a slick top. Therefore GM made more money per car on vinyl-topped cars.

Therefore GM tried to make sure that a vinyl top was promoted as the first choice when a customer came along.

[Maynard Krebs]

Knowledgeable, discriminating buyers were rare... but had good taste----which cannot be taught.

[Scot Minesinger]

To each their own.  Dealer/after market vinyl or fake convertible tops too me look terrible.  Further, I'm not much of a vinyl top fan anyway.  I agree with BJM, my 1995 RWD Fleetwood Brougham that I bought in 1997 as a daily driver looked so much better after I spent $1,500 and had the vinyl top removed.  I got lots of compliments on the car afterwards.

The 67-70 Eldorados look better with no vinyl top
The 1970 and earlier RWD Cadillac look better without a vinyl top.

I think only the 1971 thru 1976 RWD Cadillac that were designed to include a vinyl top look OK with one.  Howver they look great without one too.  Maybe the 77-79 Cadillacs were designed to include a vinyl top but they look better without one.  The 1971-78 Eldorados look good with a vinyl top, but nice without one too.  On and on, in general no vinyl top is more appealing to me.  Plus it is much more corrosion resistant too.

The fake after market convertible or dealer added vinyl tops are not for me especially.

Of course I do own a 1970 SDV with a vinyl top.  It is original and perfect, so I cannot bring myself to change it.  The car has 39k miles and original "pitina sliver" paint with a dark blue vinyl roof.  Since the car is silver, a very common color today the blue roof make it stand out as a classic, otherwise it may blend in too much with modern traffic.

[Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621]

To my eyes, there's a world of difference between factory and aftermarket roof treatments.

Personally, I prefer slick tops on all models through 1970, incl Series 75.

For 1971 - 1984 DeVilles, Series 75/Limousines and Eldorados through 1978, I prefer the car to have a vinyl roof.

For Seville 1976 - 1979 and Eldorado 1979 - 1985 either way is fine. Second gen Seville 1980 - 1985 - slick only.

Broughams from 1985 - 1992 - vinyl only which was always standard. 

All other models from 1985 & up - slick (exc FWD Fleetwoods)

[The Tassie Devil(le)]

I have a hatred for vinyl tops on anything apart from Convertibles.

My '72 Eldorado Coupe with a half Vinyl top rusted completely around the bottom of the roof, as a direct result of the factory-fitted padded vinyl top, as did my other luxury model vehicle of another brand, beginning with "F", resulting in their destruction well before their time.

As for the vehicles in the original topic, these started appearing when Convertibles were stopped, and people thought they wanted the convertible effect, without the convenience of a convertible.

The aftermarket suppliers went crazy for these as it gave them more work.

But putting these faux tops on a 4 door sedan, to me is wrong.  But, heck, what would I know?   I like Continental Kits, but only when they work, and done properly.

Bruce.

[BJM]

The aftermarket (essentially) faux vinyl tops were a major reason for the decline of Cadillac in the 1980's and 1990's.   Dealerships have no one to blame but themselves, and Cadillac zone managers seeing faux topped Sevilles and Eldorados, and later in the 1990's, DeVilles, should have narced on the dealers and Cadillac should have fined them, or communicated in such a way to eliminate this practice. 

The result that I am seeing in my CL searches are those cars ideally purchased by aging loyal Cadillac customers who likely garage kept them and drove them sparingly as they aged.  Therefore, they are still around.   It's still amazes me to see about 25 to 50% of the CL cars be these faux roofed Cadillacs.  Obviously, a similar search of Mercedes and Lexus yields no such trend there. 

With the introduction of the Eldorado modern and Seville in 1992-1993, Cadillac made a clear decision to move forward to compete head to head with Lexus and Germany.  We can debate whether that marketing strategy was successful or not with the Northstar, but styling was equal or better than Lexus and Germany.

Yuppies had decisions to make, and this was still pre-SUV craze.  They saw their grandparents and parents buying these faux roofed Cadillacs, and Cadillac dealers reaping the short term profits/gain from those sales at the cost of long term viability, and went for Lexus-Acura and BMW more or less. 

So this all started in the 1960's and 70's when most of us agree a vinyl top of some sort was attractive, even if the non vinyl top cars were also nice.  Cadillac could clearly see that the Europeans and later the Japanese were not going to follow Cadillac and Buick, so Cadillac and their dealers have no one else to blame but themselves.

Yeah, so? What's your point?   Point is Cadillac keeps asking buyers and media to believe them when they "reinvent" themselves every few years.  They want buyers to return, but that may never happen because of their inability to halt the faux roof trend into the 2000's!  Lack of leadership at GM since the 70's is the overriding issue here.  Firing GM's every 3-5 years is like a college or professional team in sports firing coaches every 3-5 years.  I'm getting off on a tangent here, but it all ties in together, and faux roofs are the poster child for this era.

[Scot Minesinger]

The 4.1 Cadillac engine gets my vote over faux vinyl tops for Cadillac's biggest mistake that ushered in MB, Lexus and others to take the lead in the luxury car market.  The faux vinyl tops did not help.  When a MB driver passed a faux vinyl top equipped Cadillac on the road they knew they made the right decision.  And a MB did not have any trouble passing a 4.1 powered Cadillac. 

[Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621]

I don't have a problem with the factory Cabriolet roof. I think it looks good on the car.

["Cadillac Kid" Greg Surfas 15364]

Sorry you guys missed the presentation at the GN given by Chuck Krupczak.  Chuck was instrumental in design, engineering, development and  installation at American Sunroof (ASR) in Detroit from 1965 through the early 80's.
ASR did the majority of sunroofs and roof decor (vinyl  and, padded vinyl) for "factory installed" roofs for Cadillac.  The cars came directly from Clark street and went back there after their particular installation. 
Chuck talked about the measures ASR used to prevent moisture migration and how many of the "dealer installed" top providers did not.
That said, my wife's 76 CdV has a "Landau" top that kind of "makes" the car.  Here in south Texas the sun gets to it and just about every 6 or 7 years the car goes in for a new top.  While the top is off, any minor rust of corruption gets taken care of by the body shop and the car is restored.  For me it is well worth the money and effort.
I took the top off my 73 several years ago after the original to was hail damaged (30+ years) and aside from getting the glue off the top there was no work needed.
Greg Surfas

[Barry M Wheeler #2189]

Trashing the trend to vinyl tops leads one to think that Cadillacs were produced only for us collectors. We sometimes seem to forget that "what we like" were a sign of the times at the time the Cadillacs in question were sold. During my stint of selling Cadillacs and Buicks, there was absolutely no "worry" from customers about the cars equipped with faux roofs. They were generally done (at least at my conservative dealership) in good taste,) and I can't remember any of the cars equipped with a factory sunroof having a faux top installed. Lincoln seemed to have the lead in this exercise in ridiculousness. (How're you going to explain having a hole in your phaeton top?)

That the car roof was going to rust prematurely didn't seem to bother "anybody." Just like all the pickup trucks in the rust belt still looking great on top, but their paper thin rockers are gone, gone, gone. And don't people "know" that you can get rid of most of the rust showing around paint that still has a modicum of steel around it with a handy-dandy SOS pad?

I think some of the major problem with rust on cars is people are simply too lazy to try to do anything about it. I always try to minimize any defects on my cars as well as I can. At least it makes me feel a little better.

[BJM]

I must say that the last gen faux tops are holding up much better than the factory jobs but then, maybe we should revisit in another 10 years.  I was looking at 2005 STS's for some reason, and there was one with a faux top. 

We don't know if by that time, the dealerships had bowed out of the faux market, so we can't necessarily condemn the dealer.  There is a shop in town that still will do them, and may have taken them as a referral but I don't think the dealer would bring one back to his lot and try to sell it. 

[Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621]

I must say that the last gen faux tops are holding up much better than the factory jobs but then, maybe we should revisit in another 10 years.

Are you certain of the origin of the tops you're comparing?