Why is my LaSalle so....plain?

[z3skybolt]

I love pre-war automobiles of all makes.  Although the interest in pre-war is rapidly declining, there are still many owners on this forum and so I bring my question to you.

Why is my 1940 LaSalle 5227 so understated?

It is a beautiful car and quite impressive in external appearance. But the interior is so very plain.  Many less expensive automobiles of the 30s and 40s have far more luxurious appearing interiors.  The Desoto; even Dodges Chevy and Fords  of that era appear better appointed.  My interior is restored to new appearance and functions perfectly. Yet is is very plain and reminds me more of my first car, a 1951 Chevy than a luxury vehicle. 

Given that the LaSalle was priced just below Cadillac and above Buick I just don't understand. It was an expensive vehicle and mechanically very much Cadillac. So why such a simple and common looking interior?  Any ideas?

Thanks,

Bob R.

[The Tassie Devil(le)]

I suppose if one wanted a flashier vehicle, they would buy a Cadillac?

Bruce.

["Cadillac Kid" Greg Surfas 15364]

OA Salle was the entry level Cadillac. The difference in finish was reflected in the couple of hundred dollars
Difference which apparently was enough less to allow folks who couldn’t pay the difference still have a “Cadillac” (of sorts).
Greg Surfas

[Barry M Wheeler #2189]

You have to remember, that "the rich are different than you and I..." I don't know where the quote came from but many of the people who purchased both Cadillac & LaSalles  wanted quality, not flash.

I would dare say that many of the Cadillac/LaSalle purchasers would never have considered one of those more "flashy" or up to date interiors you might have found in even a Chrysler. Can you image a Highlander plaid interior on a Cadillac? Even on the exteriors, the styling was understated. The interiors of the 1941 Buick Limited were also more "flashy" than Cadillac.

I had a 1941 Series 6733 Imperial sedan that had unfaded carpet way up under the jump seats. It was way, way too light a blue for "ordinary" use. A chauffer would have needed to constantly care for any soiling that might have occurred.

One of the most luxurious 1941 Cadillacs ever made had plain grey broadcloth seats. The material was so tightly woven that when I ran my hand lightly over it it felt like doeskin leather. You couldn't tell there were threads at all. (This was the car designed for the wife of the President of the Southern Pacific Railroad. I saw it at the Carson City GN.)

And the "two hundred" dollars difference in the selling price didn't make all that much difference to the purchasers of these cars. Remember the GM mantra: A car for every pocketbook. LaSalle filled a gap between Buick and Cadillac at the time it was introduced. And when the Depression came along, your plain Jane LaSalle helped keep Cadillac afloat.

[z3skybolt]

Barry,

I knew someone like yourself, who really understood the times, market, and social attitudes would come forward and help make sense of my observations.   As stated many "cheaper" cars showed " flash" but perhaps not "quality". I guess the term "understated elegance " applies.

Thanks again Barry. You and your long association with Cadillac & LaSalle is an "understated" treasure and gift to this organization.

Take care,

Bob R.

[savemy67]

"the rich are different than you and I..." I don't know where the quote came from...

Hello all,

The quote is attributed to F. Scott Fitzgerald, in a conversation with Ernest Hemingway.

One might contend that "understated elegance/quality" versus "flashy" is akin to "old money" versus "nouveau riche".  The bona-fide gentry knew what was classic.  The upstarts had aspirations.  To the rescue came America's army of advertising men, and form triumphed over substance.

Respectfully submitted,

Christopher Winter

[Tom Boehm]

Yes, understated elegance is what I was going to say also. Everyone has different perceptions, likes, and dislikes. I have a 1940 Lasalle also. I consider the dashboard my favorite by far of the art deco era. All the others look like a jukebox or pinball machine to me. The exterior styling of the 1940 series 52,62, and 60 was smooth and uncluttered without beltline chrome or running boards(most). Your car does have the optional deluxe banjo steering wheel.

[cadillac ken]

It was a time when I believe it was mostly a conservative society. Those who could afford a Cadillac product had tastes that were conservative not flashy.  Anything flashy was most likely considered gauche.  Now a days, we as a society don't give a second look to a stretched Hummer limo at 40 feet long.  Anyone that wanted a limo in the 30's was a bit more concerned with being private. 

I think it's hard to think back in those times when we are living in these.

["Cadillac Kid" Greg Surfas 15364]

Anyone ever heard of a Porsche 912 "Tante"?  This was a 911 body with a VW motor.  It sold for about $1,000.00 less than the 911, but to the casual observer, you were a sport in a 911.
Greg Surfas

[carlhungness]

       I saw a series 75 Cadillac coupe 1937 (hope I'm correct in the series number) and the interior was positively gorgeous, makes my LaSalle look plebeian. In fact if I have enough money at the time I am going to try and upgrade the interior a bit to make it look like the Cadillac. I feel  fairly certain that back in the day a customer could have done the same.
     Then too the larger series car was wider by a bit or at least it seems so looking at the dash. After seeing the Cadillac I wish I had one as opposed to the LaSalle. It reeked of class everywhere.

[jdemerson]

...Why is my 1940 LaSalle 5227 so understated?

It is a beautiful car and quite impressive in external appearance. But the interior is so very plain.  Many less expensive automobiles of the 30s and 40s have far more luxurious appearing interiors.  ... Yet is is very plain and reminds me more of my first car, a 1951 Chevy than a luxury vehicle. 

...So why such a simple and common looking interior?  Any ideas?

I would have a different slant on Bob's question than some of the responders here.  Bob didn't mention "flashy". He mentioned "more luxurious appearing" interiors vs. "understated" and "very plain" interiors. I think the question remains unanswered... Saying that Cadillac buyers wanted understated interiors misses Bob's point.

I just reviewed the interiors of 1940 Cadillac models, including Fleetwoods. They are VERY luxurious and plush, and I'd certainly call them "elegant".  The difference between many 1940 Cadillac interiors and the LaSalle interior is quite noticeable, and Bob is right that the LaSalle interior was somewhat more akin to lower priced models. I suspect that Cadillac buyers DID want elegant and luxury interiors (again, not saying "flashy") and that these differed a great deal from the typical 1940 LaSalle interiors.

So I suppose that some Cadillac buyers expected very luxurious, plush, and elegant interiors, whereas LaSalle buyers did not get the same. Perhaps the same could be said in 1941 about Series 61 buyers vs. buyers of Fleetwood models. And the "flashy" interiors of some lower priced makes is quite beside the point...

John Emerson
1952 Cadillac Sedan 6219X

[Big Apple Caddy]

Anyone ever heard of a Porsche 912 "Tante"?  This was a 911 body with a VW motor.  It sold for about $1,000.00 less than the 911, but to the casual observer, you were a sport in a 911.

Besides being a VW engine, it was also a 4 cylinder instead of a 6 cylinder as found in the 911.

["Cadillac Kid" Greg Surfas 15364]

 VW Han nothing BUT a 4 cylinder motor back then.
Greg Surfas

[Big Apple Caddy]

Yep.  I don't think VW started offering 6 cylinder engines until the 1990s.

[The Tassie Devil(le)]

C'mon fellas, Cadillacs and LaSalles, not other makes.

Bruce.

[Anderson]

You have to remember, that "the rich are different than you and I..." I don't know where the quote came from but many of the people who purchased both Cadillac & LaSalles  wanted quality, not flash.

I would dare say that many of the Cadillac/LaSalle purchasers would never have considered one of those more "flashy" or up to date interiors you might have found in even a Chrysler. Can you image a Highlander plaid interior on a Cadillac? Even on the exteriors, the styling was understated. The interiors of the 1941 Buick Limited were also more "flashy" than Cadillac.

I had a 1941 Series 6733 Imperial sedan that had unfaded carpet way up under the jump seats. It was way, way too light a blue for "ordinary" use. A chauffer would have needed to constantly care for any soiling that might have occurred.

One of the most luxurious 1941 Cadillacs ever made had plain grey broadcloth seats. The material was so tightly woven that when I ran my hand lightly over it it felt like doeskin leather. You couldn't tell there were threads at all. (This was the car designed for the wife of the President of the Southern Pacific Railroad. I saw it at the Carson City GN.)

And the "two hundred" dollars difference in the selling price didn't make all that much difference to the purchasers of these cars. Remember the GM mantra: A car for every pocketbook. LaSalle filled a gap between Buick and Cadillac at the time it was introduced. And when the Depression came along, your plain Jane LaSalle helped keep Cadillac afloat.

Honestly, I kind-of prefer the understated look and styling.  It's a good deal of why, given the choice, for a vehicle of similar reliability, part availability, and cost I'd probably take a '67-'76 Cadillac over one from the late 50s/early 60s.  Not that those cars aren't beautiful, but there's something to be said for a relatively understated elegance (long, smooth lines and so on) from later on.  Yes, there's a certain excess to a car that you could park a smart Fortwo on the hood of, but it is also not excessively flashy.  It stands out rather than sticking out, if you will...

But that's also generally Cadillac's MO (Mercedes slipped into a similar niche in the 80s).  The interiors are definitely luxurious (the seats are quite comfortable; I feel a bit like I'm driving an armchair (the window is at *just* the right height for that, and the door has enough space on the arm to comfortably rest my arm) but otherwise it doesn't feel like I'm driving something that is excessively "loud" in the way a tailfin-era Cadillac was.  Mind you, it doesn't have the extreme conservatism/restraint of a Toyota Century, but it (and even moreso the Fleetwoods and limousines of the same era, which to my view are magnificently understated, especially if you go with black or another "tame" color) also doesn't stand out the way that some of the more "overwrought" Mercedes or British cars of the era would (or indeed, the muscle cars and whatnot did).

[Jeff Rosansky CLC #28373]

I've seen it Bob. Trust me, it isn't.
Jeff

[fishnjim]

Reality check.   Looking thru modern eyes.
This period, heaters and AM radios were still an option.   Just came out of the '30s great depression.
So expectations change not historical periods.
No MP3 and GPS in '40.   It was a "going to war" era.   Hitler was invading when the '40 models came out. 
Too some, simplicity is cherished.   No distracted driving in a stock '40.   

[z3skybolt]

All very true Jim,

But there were many 1940 automobiles with plush and luxurious interiors. My LaSalle was just not one of them. To your point: having grown up in the 50's and 60s when GM and others had a model for every pocketbook....one normally found more luxury and quality as the customer moved up the ladder. A Chevy was more plain than an Oldsmobile an Oldsmobile less plush than a Cadillac and so on. Therefore I came to equate quality and luxury the farther upscale one went.

Given that the LaSalle was only one ring below Cadillac, when I purchased the car four years ago, I had expected it's interior to be more luxurious.  That was not the case. Perhaps a LaSalle buyer was more interested in the "Cadillac" quality of a LaSalle than a plush interior.

Much truth in what you said.  I am guilty of "looking through modern eyes"....even if those concepts were formed decades ago.

Thanks,

Bob

[Jeff Rosansky CLC #28373]

Perhaps a LaSalle buyer was more interested in the "Cadillac" quality of a LaSalle than a plush interior.

You may be exactly correct. I am not a GM history, nor a marketing guy but maybe that was the LaSalle's nitch. It had the quality, not so much of the plushness. Also, don't forget that the name was much more of a part of things than now. Now a days you can lease just about anything with a 580 credit score so a name isn't that big of a deal anymore. Back then tho, you had to be somebody to have a Cadillac or LaSalle.
Jeff