Vote For One

[PerfAdv]

Only Bentley does that. No other marque.

I don't know about that:

The tuning firm Brabus... produced a version of the 57/62 in 2004 which adds significant performance, features and style to the models. Electronically limited to a 300km/h (186.411 miles/hour) speed limit, these large vehicles produce 1026 N·m of torque and accelerate from standstill to 100 km/h in 4.9 seconds.
This makes the Brabus Maybach arguably the fastest super-luxury motorcar in the world, a trend which was started in 1968 by the Mercedes-Benz 300SEL 6.3.

---quote liberated from wikipedia

Even the factory 57 is no slouch.

[Fleet 500]

Maybe in another 20 yrs the Caddy will look classic or retro-cool or something, for now it just looks over the hill.

I'm wondering why it looks "over the hill" to you? Check the photos below and tell me how it looks that way to you. Especially compared to the Rolls which has styling ('40s and early '50s style) at least 10 years older than that of the Cadillac.

[Fleet 500]

True, the Cadillac probably is the better driver, handling wise anyway. To me though the Rolls tops the Caddy because its the iconic luxury/prestige car; almost entirely handmade, even the ball-bearing that go into a Rolls were finished by hand.

Yeah, handling wise but don't forget power, roominess and ride (and more modern styling in the '60s).

Neither is really my kind of car. I know the new Maybachs are limos you could enjoy driving yourself but I still see them best chauffeured. So, picking the Caddy because it's a better driver it kind of pointless argument to me.

Actually, the Cadillac I posted ('69 Fleetwood Brougham) were sometimes used as limos, complete with a chauffeur. More common, though, were the chauffeur-driven real limos.

What I do find appealing about the Caddy is that being made from GM parts, it's probably cheap to maintain and reasonably reliable.

Very true and comes in handy. A starter cost only about $40-50. Even starters for Toyotas probably cost more! And they are reliable, another bonus.

[nota]

I'm wondering why it looks "over the hill" to you? Check the photos below and tell me how it looks that way to you. Especially compared to the Rolls which has styling ('40s and early '50s style) at least 10 years older than that of the Cadillac.

Fleet maybe .. just possibly .. could that be because the two cars you posted are the '69 Cadillac against a Rolls Royce Silver Cloud?

* That particular GM car (Cadillac) debuted in approx 1969 and was obsolescent by 1970 (a mere 12 months from new)

* By contrast the RR Cloud debuted FOURTEEN years earlier .. yes in 1955 .. and was finally phased out in 1966

1955-on Silver Cloud


So no wonder this RR model looks "at least 10 years older" - because it is!

1965-on Silver Shadow


Do you think it rational and 'fair' if we compared a '69 RR Shadow against the clunky 1955 era Cadillac? (3rd attached pic). Obviously not. So why are you asking us to compare a by-then outdated old Roller against the much more recent GM? Is it because a more reasoned (not to mention equitable) comparison between '69 GM (Cadillac) and 1965-on RR Silver Shadow highlights certain GM deficiencies ...

Monocoque construction for lighter weight?
RR yes / GM no

All-aluminium V8 engine for lighter weight?
RR yes / GM no

Four wheel disc brakes for superior stopping?
RR yes / GM no

4-speed auto with electronic control?
RR yes / GM no

Full all-wheel hydropneumatic high-pressure suspension system (Citroen licensed) with IRS and self-levelling on front AND rear?
RR yes / GM no


Btw current poll
RR = 41
GM = 6

[Ferrer]

I don't know about that:
---quote liberated from wikipedia

Even the factory 57 is no slouch.

180mph Arnage T ftw.

[Ingolstadt]

If it were Silver Shadow VS Caddy, I'd go caddy.

[Fleet 500]

Fleet maybe .. just possibly .. could that be because the two cars you posted are the '69 Cadillac against a Rolls Royce Silver Cloud?

* That particular GM car (Cadillac) debuted in approx 1969 and was obsolescent by 1970 (a mere 12 months from new)

* By contrast the RR Cloud debuted FOURTEEN years earlier .. yes in 1955 .. and was finally phased out in 1966

That's my point... a design which didn't change for over 10 years seems more "over the hill" to me than one which was refreshed every 2-3 years.
The styling of the Rolls was 10 years behind the times compared to Cadillac... a 1965 Rolls had 1955 (or earlier) styling.

BTW, the 1970 model was very similar to the '69.
Below: 1969 and 1970 Cadillacs.

[Ferrer]

That's my point... a design which didn't change for over 10 years seems more "over the hill" to me than one which was refreshed every 2-3 years.
The styling of the Rolls was 10 years behind the times compared to Cadillac... a 1965 Rolls had 1955 (or earlier) styling.

BTW, the 1970 model was very similar to the '69.
Below: 1969 and 1970 Cadillacs.

I don't think that's a problem. For over 40 years the Porsche 911 has looked the same, and it's fine. Besides in 1965 RR introduced the Silver Shadow which was a radical departure from previous Rollers both aesthetically and technically.

[Fleet 500]

I don't think that's a problem. For over 40 years the Porsche 911 has looked the same, and it's fine. Besides in 1965 RR introduced the Silver Shadow which was a radical departure from previous Rollers both aesthetically and technically.

Most of the car-buying public, especially in the '60s and earlier, preferred when a car's styling was updated. In some neighborhoods, it was an embarassment to be seen with a 4-year-old car.
And back in the '50s, a 1956 car was considered "old" by 1958.

[Fleet 500]

Fleet maybe .. just possibly .. could that be because the two cars you posted are the '69 Cadillac against a Rolls Royce Silver Cloud?

So no wonder this RR model looks "at least 10 years older" - because it is!

I thought I would compare the Rolls I saw in the parking lot with one of the Cadillacs I owned. So I picked the oldest one I owned.

And compare the '65 Rolls in the Car & Driver test (if you've seen it)... it does look 10 years older than other 1965 cars.

[Ferrer]

Most of the car-buying public, especially in the '60s and earlier, preferred when a car's styling was updated. In some neighborhoods, it was an embarassment to be seen with a 4-year-old car.
And back in the '50s, a 1956 car was considered "old" by 1958.

But that was in the US. Remember there's life outside the US...

[Fleet 500]

But that was in the US. Remember there's life outside the US...

There is?

You're right... what I wrote did apply to the U.S.

[PerfAdv]

I'm wondering why it looks "over the hill" to you? Check the photos below and tell me how it looks that way to you. Especially compared to the Rolls which has styling ('40s and early '50s style) at least 10 years older than that of the Cadillac.

As already stated, the Roller is older and the newer '65+ cars would have been a better comparo. This may be true, the way I see it though is even the older RR is superior. This is based on both facts about build and subjectives that make the Rolls more than the sum of its parts. On the other hand the Cadillac doesn't share this quality; it's a spacious, comfortable cruiser yet its essentially just a big Chevy.

As for being OTH: When a newer model can better the values of the older, this does outdate it and make it "over the hill." However, when the core values aren't easily bettered, the older car still holds it value. Thus a pristine Silver Cloud would look perfectly in its element dropping off at a red carpet event; the older Cadillac by comparison would look a little out of place.

[Fleet 500]

As already stated, the Roller is older and the newer '65+ cars would have been a better comparo. This may be true, the way I see it though is even the older RR is superior. This is based on both facts about build and subjectives that make the Rolls more than the sum of its parts..

I think that if people were to drive both cars, many would end up preferring the Cadillac. Because, let's face it... many people buy a Rolls for its radiator shell, not for its driving ability.

On the other hand the Cadillac doesn't share this quality; it's a spacious, comfortable cruiser yet its essentially just a big Chevy.

That used to be a common myth, but is very inaccurate. The Cadillac had its own engines. It had better materials and build quality. It had more comfort and luxury items. It had a wide range of models available, up to and including a limousine. Production rate was slower at Cadillac; more time was available to build its cars. The average Cadillac employee was at his job more than 10 years. The seats, carpet, sheet metal, etc is of better quality on a Cadillac. And as Car Life said (in 1964) "The car can be summed up in one word: Polish. What other automobile can boast of hard gold contact points in its voltage regulator?"

As for being OTH: When a newer model can better the values of the older, this does outdate it and make it "over the hill." However, when the core values aren't easily bettered, the older car still holds it value.

In many instances, an older Cadillac sells for more than a newer one.

Thus a pristine Silver Cloud would look perfectly in its element dropping off at a red carpet event; the older Cadillac by comparison would look a little out of place.

A Cadillac limousine, even an older one, would look perfectly in place parked next to a Rolls.

[Fleet 500]

Is it because a more reasoned (not to mention equitable) comparison between '69 GM (Cadillac) and 1965-on RR Silver Shadow highlights certain GM deficiencies ...

Monocoque construction for lighter weight?
RR yes / GM no

Many people wanted a heavier car. In surveys, some would say, "I like its heavy weight- holds the road better."

All-aluminium V8 engine for lighter weight?
RR yes / GM no

That didn't seem to help much. A 1965 Cadillac engine weighed 600 lbs while a 1965 Rolls engine weighed 713 lbs (figures from Car & Driver test). The Cadillac engine was so well-designed that it didn't need aluminum.

Four wheel disc brakes for superior stopping?
RR yes / GM no

Yes, the Rolls did have excellent brakes.

4-speed auto with electronic control?
RR yes / GM no

It's well known that in the '60s, Rolls used the G.M-built Hydramatic transmission. Rolls also used the (G.M.-built) Fridgidaire air conditioning unit. Also, due to well thought-out gearing, the cruising speed rpms were about the same on a Cadillac as on a Rolls even though the Cadillac had a 3-speed trans from 1964 on.

Full all-wheel hydropneumatic high-pressure suspension system (Citroen licensed) with IRS and self-levelling on front AND rear?
RR yes / GM no

Cadillac's fine suspension system afforded a better overall ride compared to the Rolls, as well as better handling. As Car & Driver said about the RR, "a suspension system the betrays every secret of the road..."
Perhaps they were right when they said that the Rolls was probably the most overrated car in the world and that's why I'm not surprised at the the poll results.