I kinda like the 2 door without the half vinyl
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Cadillac-DeVille-Coupe-Deville-Calais-?cmd=ViewItem&_trkparms=aid%3D111000%26algo%3DREC.CURRENT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D14%26meid%3D886427863153675826%26pid%3D100015%26prg%3D1006%26rk%3D1%26&_trksid=p5197.m1992&item=200798209987
A Coupe DeVille Calais, eh. Better grab it someone, that must be the only one ever built!
:confused2:
Ueah, doesn't that bug you? The Calais was the baseline Cadillasc, but folk never see it that way.
Love all the Armor All on the seats too. Nice and slippey!
Mike
Whatever. It had T/T wheel, cruise and an armrest in the middle. Cadillac already had the P/W, P/S and P/L. But he did screw the interior up with all of that slime on it. Cadillac leather had a lustre to it, not a shine.
Could you even get leather in a Calais? My bet is that is vinyl. You couldn't even get a vinyl roof until 1974.
I have seen some well optioned Calais. There was a customer that had a '74 with every option you could get on one, including air bags.
Mike
I didn't know Cadillac ever even offered vinyl.
The Calais was an odd duck in the Cadillac world. I think they used, in part, seat frames from lesser makes to allow a lower price. But in the 70's the upgrade to a deVille was pretty cheap, hence the really low numbers of Calais production.
If you really look at a Calais, you can see a lot of cost cutting, not just the lack of side trim and the sporatic limitation of option availability.
Mike
I guess it would be like the Series 62 of the '59 model years and the deVille series. All trim and options.
Pretty much. But we do know how much nicer the 60S seats are compared to the deVilles in '59.
In the '70's I think the frames between the deVille and Fleetwoods were the same, but the Calais may have used seats derived from those used on Pontiac, Olds and some Buicks. All you have to do is sit in them and you can tell the solidity of the seat.
Mike
I think after the 72 model year you can see how GM started to cut corners on all there model lines , even the trucks.
GM is always cutting costs and corners. Some periods were more obvious than others, and some car/truck lines exhibited it more than others. However, the '75 CDV I had was a solid well built car.
Mike
Mike , that was the "old "GM" what about the "new" GM ? has things changed or is this just hype? When GM was in the driver's seat back in the day I remember going to school and every instructor that I had said we really only focus on the senior or full size cars , the rest of the models are made to meet market share , I remember when the imports started to take away GM's market share that they told us was just a "fad" as far as sales go!
That's a very complex question, Joe. The auto industry and GM is huge and there are so many drivers that send them in whatever direction. Market demands, the general economy, gov't regulations, public tastes and political directives. Not to mention the cost of gas. GM has to manufacture cars at a profit during all of these times. And of coarse the state of the technologies as they exist at any given time.
They can embark on a cost cutting venture in some areas and find that the cost cuts are not worth the lost sales, warranty costs or perceived quality by the public.
And I have noticed that in tougher economic times, quality has actually risen, technical innovation is greater. Look at how cars changed during the depression. We are going through a similar period in time now, and there is some really great technical innovation happening out there now. The entire industry is in an upheaval similar to what it was in the 30's. Competition to stay alive is huge. You have to be innovative and forward to get the a piece of the smaller pie. You have to do what it takes to woo the customer. And the customer, like it or not, is looking for technology, be it greater fuel economy with more power and that endless stream of gadgets that most of us here revile so much.
Conversely, in good times, they tend to look at the profit numbers greater. A great example of that is where the industry went in the 80's. GM tried to maximise profit at the expense of quality. As did Ford and Chrysler. However Chrysler was in a fight for its' life in the early 80's , but once they emerged from that, is was all about profit.
The import invasion came basically in several waves. The big 3 made attempts to drive them off in each of those waves with limited success. Had they driven them off in the first couple, maybe the industry would have a completely differant face. We all know about the first and the response from the industry in the early 60's. Then there was another in the early 70's that produced the Vega, Pinto, Maverick, Gremlin and Cricket. The oil embargo in the mid 70's that brought us the first wave of downsizig (not completely true since GM initiated the downsizing program before the fall of 1973). Then again in the late 70's and then pretty much constantly since then once the imports got a real foothold in our market.
As Jon will point out, and I think he has a very valid argument, the engineering was cut throat. No unneeded costs, ease of production and not service. The car has to come to market at a given price with a built in profit. The engineer that appeals to the bean counters will triumph. And that not only applies to the car itself and it's components, but how it's put together. Fewer man hours for assembly results in lower cost of production. Just look at how many components minor and major just snap together these days. From hose assemblies to entire front and rear fascias.
Innovations are made in all areas over time as the industry refines and reinvents itself. Major new technologies, the refinements of that. A breakthrough here and there and further refinement. It's ongoing and you can see it as you study and follow the industry and eveolution of the automobile from the dawn of the industry to the present.
Mike
Quote from: guidematic on August 02, 2012, 01:58:50 PM
As Jon will point out, and I think he has a very valid argument, the engineering was cut throat. No unneeded costs, ease of production and not service. The car has to come to market at a given price with a built in profit. The engineer that appeals to the bean counters will triumph. And that not only applies to the car itself and it's components, but how it's put together. Fewer man hours for assembly results in lower cost of production. Just look at how many components minor and major just snap together these days. From hose assemblies to entire front and rear fascias.
Very well said. The reality is that a good portion of the best engineers would never set foot in the automotive environment since the cut throat atmosphere, lack of attention to longevity, and penny pinching goes against their very nature.
I used to work at the production design level of a Magna facility, and I swore to myself I'd never set foot in automotive again. I turned myself into a hypocrite when I started working for GM in my grad studies. However the high end research side (we deal a lot with crash safety and formability) is completely different.
Jon, do you work for GM ?? very good response.
I do in a manner of speaking. Technically I'm a researcher employed by the university, however all my work and research funding comes from GM, and all my results and papers go straight to them. For a while I was officially a GM employee in order for me to gain access to the equipment I needed.