31st Mar 2013, 00:22

I don't know why speed, acceleration, and nimble handling makes such a big deal here in the US, unless you're constantly running away from cops or something like that.

31st Mar 2013, 11:44

No, these cars aren't practical. Nobody drives these things every day, because you'd be spending half of each day at the gas station. They were classy, comfortable, and great in most regards, but with gas being what it is, you'd have to be John Gotti or Pablo Escobar to have enough money to keep these things on the road today.

And this is a site about cars, not about spreading your political ideologies. If you want to do that, go to YouTube and do that; just don't expect those people to behave very civilized.

I'd rather we didn't have another 440 comment argument like what we had with the 1978 Lincoln Continental. With arguments going on for that long, it's only inevitable that the main topic of this conversation will quickly change into something completely unrelated.

31st Mar 2013, 14:31

"1980 Delta '88. Boy was that a fugly car. Just a big box on wheels."

Oh I am sorry it's not a fat stubby hog like the Buick Lacrosse, anything Cadillac, Chrysler 300, Ford Taurus... shall I go on?

31st Mar 2013, 16:25

Exactly, as I pointed out many new luxury cars are track tested and advertised for their speed and sporty handling. I live 3 miles from work, and my stop and go commute takes me over a lot of broken pavement and potholes, which these modern sport tuned cars handle like a donkey cart. Even when I'm out on the freeway, I don't need a car that can change lanes while remaining completely flat or decelerate with no nose dive! Give me a soft tuned luxury car from the Detroit magic days any day.

I really am pleased that Lincoln is bringing back some personalization as far as suspension tuning goes. This technology has been around for decades; why isn't everybody using it instead of forcing all of us to drive around in sport tuned suspensions. I don't want or need my full-size luxury vehicle to feel or drive like a sports car, thank you very much.

1st Apr 2013, 09:05

I'm the one who originally wrote the comment about these cars not being able to pass 116 mph. I have to say, I never expected guys like you to follow a comment to try and start another 455 comment argument about nothing.

I agree that these cars aren't practical for daily driving. Especially with the larger V8 engines. However, they make great weekend/vacation cruisers for people who can keep them in good shape.

Yes, they aren't very quick off the line. Mainly because of all that emissions equipment that choked power, and because the three-speed C6 transmission is heavy and requires a lot of power to operate, which will drastically affect performance.

And lastly, I don't know what you're talking about with the global warming crap and progressivism and whatnot. These don't use leaded fuel, so they're hardly the worst thing for the environment. Keep your political views and ideology out of this site, and head to YouTube if that's what you want. On the other hand, I don't know any young people who legitimately care that much about the Earth unless they're just in some club trying to get something for their resume. And I know a ton of young people, so I know what I'm talking about.

1st Apr 2013, 15:06

No, the old land yachts don't use leaded fuel, they just use three times as much unleaded. That means three times as much global warming gases spewed into an already rapidly heating atmosphere. And arguing that global warming is a "hoax" goes against tons of evidence to the contrary. No reputable climatologist any longer questions the stark reality of global warming. It's as real as the Moon in the sky.

And survey after survey continues to show that younger people are more compassionate, more tolerant and more concerned about the future of our planet than older, less informed people.

This does not mean people can't enjoy these beautiful older cars. It just means they are no longer a practical means of daily transportation. My family owns three beautiful classics from the 50's, 60's and 70's. We'd never dream of using any of them as daily drivers. Not only are they horrible for the environment, but the 8-12 mile per gallon fuel mileage would make them a poor choice for daily commuting.

2nd Apr 2013, 11:02

There is no problem with having a healthy debate about cars or even entire car eras. But I find it ironic that some people might claim that they are somehow in the right for making generic comments such as how that "modern Cadillacs are plastic" or whatever, or that smaller cars by default are harder to work on because "parts are harder to find" or something to that extent. Where some of these "facts" come from I am totally unsure of, but when and if such comments are made, don't be surprised if people raise eyebrows.

One thing is for sure, and that is that the majority of the automotive press, and even everyday consumers are totally on board with many of the designs Cadillac has been coming out with. The ATS won the North American car of the year. You don't get such praise from building crap.

Let's just put it this way: had Cadillac continued to do the same as they had been doing, it's pretty doubtful they would still be around, and the only cars left would be old ones, much the same as there are only old Studebakers, Pontiacs, and Hupmobiles.

Not EVERYONE agrees that old late 70's car were the bee's knees of automotive design and technology. People have different opinions. So that being the case, understand that's the world we live in.

Please feel free to once again for the umpteenth time tell me how wrong I am, and that cars like the Cadillac Cimarron, 1982 Lincoln Continental, and others like those were the best. cars. eva.

2nd Apr 2013, 20:43

What about emissions from cows? You don't hear people complaining about that.

2nd Apr 2013, 21:24

Hardly anybody uses these types of cars for daily drivers. The only people who do are either older people who bought them back in the day and never gave them up (which isn't a bad economic investment in the long run for them) or teenagers buying their first car who got them dirt cheap. With 8-12 miles to the US gallon, if you don't fall into one of these two groups, you'd have to be rich. But even then, what rich guy would drive a car going on 40 years old everyday?

3rd Apr 2013, 08:39

Nobody is arguing that modern cars are unreliable or crappy. By the way, Cadillac and Lincoln both had their screw-ups in the past too. Remember the Lincoln Versailles, the 1988 Lincoln Continental, 1980 Cadillac Seville, or the dreaded Cadillac HT-4100 engines? Those were all royal screw-ups. Older isn't always better. Newer cars don't have that as much anymore.

Your assertion that if Cadillac kept building big cars, they'd be gone by now, isn't ever going to be proven, as GM backed out of big car production back in 1996 to make way for SUVs, which were far more profitable, because they sold like crazy and they were practically exempt from CAFE standards, which meant GM didn't have to make serious updates onto them every few years.

The 1970s was not perfect in terms of automotive design. The Chevrolet Vega, Ford Pinto, and Dodge Dart were all fine examples of what went wrong during that decade. However, it was the best decade for the big luxury cars hands down, as the downsized 1980s cars were anemic and woefully underpowered compared to these cars.

Nobody is saying that older cars are necessarily better, they're just saying basically that it's a shame you can't buy a modern luxury car that has the same ideals in mind anymore. Like anybody really cares if the new Cadillacs are track tested? It sounds good, but then you realize that they're all on cheap front-wheel drive platforms (which is great for regular cars, but not the best for luxury vehicles). Believe me, the younger people aren't going to waste their time with the Cadillac, because they'll be heading over to the Mercedes-Benz or BMW dealership instead.