(EXPANDED FROM 12/16/2022)
One of the more popular comments about previous versions of this story has been that the 1961-63 “compact” Cadillac failed because it looked out of proportion. It was basically a regular Cadillac four-door hardtop except for seven inches chopped from its deck.
That argument makes a certain amount of sense given the stylistic biases of that time, when long decks were in vogue with Big Three automakers. Cadillac led the parade with unusually big butts adorned with fins. This was a major way General Motors’ luxury-car division visually distinguished its cars from its more plebeian siblings now that they all shared the same basic body.
The shortened Cadillac’s deck may have been in the same ballpark as the Chevrolet’s, but it didn’t look “normal” for a contemporary Cadillac. To make matters worse, the Cadillac’s wheelbase was longer and its deck was unusually tapered, so the unorthodox proportions were even more visually pronounced.
Cadillac marketeers would appear to have been sensitive to the situation because almost all images of the 1961-63 cars were illustrations — and they looked lower, longer and wider. The photo below of the 1961 lineup is an exception, but you cannot clearly see the proportions of the shortened Cadillac.
For 1961 Cadillac shrinks its cars . . . twice
When the 1961 models were introduced, Motor Trend (1960) noted that “Cadillac’s leadership in the luxury class” was “undisputed” — so it was noteworthy when the brand shifted direction. That year the length of all Cadillacs was shortened three inches. That meant the mid-level de Ville was now 222 inches long.
Alas, the Lincoln one-upped Cadillac with a new Continental that was only 212 inches long — a whopping 10 inches shorter. Cadillac responded by coming out mid year with a short-deck four-door hardtop, which was 215 inches long.
These downsizing efforts resulted in luxury brands no longer being bigger on the outside and roomier on the inside than their lower-priced stablemates.
“A Buick, Oldsmobile or Pontiac can be longer than a Cadillac, while a Mercury is actually longer, wider and higher than a Lincoln Continental,” Motor Trend noted (1961; p. 74).
In other words, the traditional Detroit hierarchy of “bigger = more expensive” was starting to break down. Even so, that did not guarantee the success of Cadillac’s short-deck model.
GM takes the easy way out — and gets what it pays for
John Gunnell wrote that the short-deck Cadillac was “ostensibly created for rich San Franciscan dowagers with small parking stalls in their luxury apartment houses” (2002, p. 126).
A more cynical speculation is that this was General Motors’ response to criticism that its increasingly large cars had become what American Motors CEO George Romney called the “Dinosaur in the driveway” (Hyde, 2009; p. 186). Between 1950 and 1960 the entry-level Cadillac four-door sedan had grown by 13 inches in length and almost 1,000 pounds in weight.
The short-deck 1961 Cadillac weighed only 40 pounds less than the regular-sized four-door hardtop, but it was within three inches in length of a 1950 Cadillac — and a 1961 Continental.
Cadillac’s approach was decidedly half-assed compared to Lincoln, which was given a brand-new platform. However, GM could at least point to the short-deck model as proving that its luxury brand was shifting with the times.
A market failure by any measure
In 1961 the short-deck model had quite modest production — 3,756 units. That represented less than 3 percent of overall Cadillac volume. Indeed, that was lower than the total production for the Fleetwood 75 — cars costing almost twice as much. However, one could have assumed that this was partly because the body style was introduced mid year.
For 1962 the short-decke body style was offered in both the Sixty-Two and the de Ville series. Production apparently went up to 5,200 units, but that still represented a drop in the bucket to Cadillac’s overall volume, which surpassed 160,000 — an all-time record.
For 1963 the short-deck body style was only offered in the de Ville series. Dubbed the Park Avenue sedan, It was described as “(s)pecially designed with a shorter rear deck and subsequent less over-all length — but with full Cadillac interior roominess — the Park Avenue maneuvers to the envy of many smaller cars. It is a motor car with particular appeal to the ladies.”
Production fell to under 1,600 units for 1963. This was less than the limited-production Eldorado Biarritz convertible. Sales declined despite all-new sheetmetal which helped boost Cadillac to another record. Not surprisingly, the short-decked Cadillac was dropped for 1964. Over the next decade the standard models would grow another seven inches and 400 pounds.
So why didn’t a shorter Cadillac succeed?
If rationality had prevailed, the short-decked Cadillac should have done better. After all, Cadillac arguably had a better all-around “compact” than the Lincoln Continental. The latter may have been exceptionally short for an American luxury car — only 212.4 inches — but in 1961 it weighed roughly 260 pounds more than a short-decked Cadillac. In addition, the Cadillac offered more room for passengers, both because of its longer wheelbase and more space-efficient design.
Thus, if one was truly interested in a more compact luxury car, the Cadillac was arguably the better choice. Yet the Continental sedan outsold the short-decked Cadillac by more than seven-to-one between 1961 and 1963.
Does this prove Americans equated luxuriousness with bigness? Not necessarily given rising sales of smaller personal coupes such as the Ford Thunderbird (go here for further discussion).
In addition, the short-deck Cadillac would appear to have been hamstrung by a relative lack of marketing. For example, in 1961 Cadillac brochures devoted only one page to this body style. I could also only find one advertisement, which is shown to your right. The ad does not make a direct reference to a short deck. The reason I assume that this is the body style featured is because the Automotive History Preservation Society said so.
Cadillac had no motivation to change
I could understand if Cadillac gave the short deck a low priority. Largely on the strength of its core products, the brand captured upwards of 78 percent of luxury car output from 1961-63. Meanwhile, the Continental didn’t surpass 20 percent of the market until 1965, a year after it had received a longer wheelbase and a roomier greenhouse.
Those numbers suggest that bigger was indeed considered better by most luxury car buyers. But again, what about the rise of personal coupes? The Imperial’s sales were so marginal that Chrysler might have done better by ditching the brand in favor of a Thunderbird competitor.
That said, the best test of whether a smaller luxury car could have carved out a decent niche might have been for the 1964 Imperial to have been downsized. I argue here that the Imperial had greater prospects than the Continental because owners would have received more tangible benefits and fewer weaknesses from a smaller size.
As for Cadillac, the short-deck models strike me as the 1960s-equivalent of a regulatory compliance car — something you do to placate your critics. “Look, no one is buying the smaller Cadillac. Told ya!”
It seems to me that a better test of whether a smaller luxury car was salable would have been shortening both the wheelbase and deck. If Cadillac was worried about reducing the roominess of its four-door models, then why not a shorter two-door hardtop that dipped a toe into the personal coupe market?
NOTES:
This story was originally posted on Feb. 3, 2018; expanded on July 23, 2021; updated on Dec. 16, 2022; and expanded on April 23, 2025. Production figures and dimensions are from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006) and Gunnell (2002).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International; Lincolnwood, Ill.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised Fourth Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Hyde, Charles K; 2009. Storied Independent Automakers: Nash, Hudson, and American Motors. Wayne State University Press, Detroit, MI.
- Motor Trend; 1960. “Cadillac: A decrease in length and option offerings.” November issue: pp. 84-85.
- ——; 1961. “Cadillac, Lincoln-Continental and Imperial offer three distinct approaches to prestige driving.” April issue: pp. 74-83.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- autohistorypreservationsociety.org: Cadillac (1961)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Cadillac (1961, 1962, 1963, 1964)
I don’t know if any of you guys actually saw a short deck caddy in the flesh. They were clearly unpopular, and I imagine the resale value was awful compared to the rest of the line, so they rapidly moved downscale and to the scrapyards. I DID see them in the flesh, and they looked nothing like the brochure paintings. They just looked…wrong. You couldn’t immediately put your finger on it, but there was just something wrong.
I undoubtedly saw one as a kid but don’t remember them. Do you think the proportions would have been better if they cut back the wheelbase a few inches?
Probably not. There was a certain hood/roof/trunk ratio that was expected. These caddies didn’t have it.
The Park Avenue was a reprise of the standard 62 sedan sold through 1958, only year of which it overlapped with the extended deck sedan and SdV that sold in much greater numbers. However, sales of the standard deck sedan was similar to 60 Special at around 13,000 units so not insignificant. It was only absent for two years and during that time perhaps Cadillac heard from enough ’58 and earlier standard deck sedan buyers that they didn’t want a longer car. And/or perhaps Cadillac witnessed a loss of some customers to Buick.
Expanding on Steve’s suggestion to shorten the wheelbase, a worthwhile opportunity might have been to create a wide, top-of-line personal coupe… a new Seville. Roof could have been like the ’63 CdV: short and with closed rear quarters. Bucket seats up front and perhaps in the rear, and less rear legroom than the standard Cadillac. No change to hood length. A first step in the direction of ’67 Eldorado.
My error, the ’56 SdV was a long-deck car too. It became short-deck for ’57 as part of a body share with the standard 62 4-door, and all were hardtops.
This take is silly, it’s barely noticeable, and a beautiful car by any means. You are grossly exaggerating how they look. It’s impossible to tell its missing the measly 8 inches unless you park one side by side to a normal deville. The proportions are fine, and Its not like they’re stubby or short by any means, it’s still quite impressive of a trunk.
Your comment raises two important points for me. Aesthetic taste is culturally contingent and can change over time. For example, automakers in most other countries did not follow along as American designers stretched the decks of larger cars to unprecedented levels in the 1960s. And even here in the U.S., what was considered “beautiful” automotive proportions in the 1960s and 1970s was different than in the early 1950s or the 2020s. Today many of us would cringe if Cadillac came out with a car that had the proportions of a standard-sized 1961-63 de Ville.
This is why it can be an interesting exercise to inquire as to where our own aesthetic taste comes from. What era is it primarily rooted in? What cars most epitomized our aesthetic ideal?
As a case in point, I would say that my tastes were heavily informed by the 1960s but I was most drawn to cars such as the Jaguar XK-E and XJ, Avanti, 1962-63 Lincoln Continental and De Tomaso Mangusta. In other words, a more compact and European sensibility that shifted over time from exceptionally rounded contours to slab sides. From that standpoint, the standard Cadillac from the early-60s looked overdone to me even though I considered it much better executed than, say, a 1961 Imperial.
Interesting points! On the topic of era looks, a visibly shorter trunk than hood became normal on luxury cars by the 1980s/1990s (e.g. Mercedes W126 S-Class/BMW E32 7-Series/aero Town Car), and then really short trunks became the norm during the late 1990s. In my eyes, it actually makes the old 61′ look a bit more “leaned back” which I like. Moreover, on the 61′ in particular, the large fins themselves exude length, so the difference is not as noticeable, then lets say, the 62-64 years. All models of the 61 were beautiful. I think I was just mostly pointing on the fact that this whole article was dedicated to trash-talking a 61′ with a slightly different trunk, which was silly to me. Still a highly desrirable car, and If you look anywhere else, there’s not this gang of negativity, on the Cadillac Lasalle forums, people appreciate it just the same as a regular 61 deville. A Fully furbished Short deck sold for $30,000, on collectingcars . com so their “resale value” is not “awful” by any means! As have several other short decks, for just as high prices. People still want them just as much as any good quality 61 cadillac.
“I think I was just mostly pointing on the fact that this whole article was dedicated to trash-talking a 61′ with a slightly different trunk, which was silly to me.”
I would invite you to reread the article. For example, how is it “trash talking” to say, “If rationality had prevailed, the short-decked Cadillac should have done better. After all, Cadillac arguably had a better all-around ‘compact’ than the Lincoln Continental”?
Nor does the article itself criticize the short-decked Cadillac’s styling. That came from some commentators.
This article — like the entire website — doesn’t address the collectibility of cars. I instead analyze the decline of the U.S. auto industry (go here for further discussion). If you see that as “trash talking” then you might not find Indie Auto to be your cup of tea.
You’re right, I meant to say some of the commentators instead of the article itself. Great article.
The biggest problem I see is that they didn’t put in more effort to make it distinctive, and just left it in the uncanny valley. The skeg-finless ’63 pulls it off better than the ’61-2 where the double fins just look doubly stubby. I’d have shaved those starting with the ’61 and, tooling budget allowing, the upper fins as well leaving a clean tapered tail.
The problem is that the short-deck model looks awkward in real life. In profile view, the trunk looks too short in relation to the rest of the body. It reminds me of a Manx cat – a breed that has no tail.
Cadillac didn’t reduce the length of the hood or passenger compartment on these cars. That is the problem. The short deck throws the proportions out of whack. Cadillac couldn’t shorten the passenger compartment without compromising interior space, so that was out of the question. Simultaneously reducing the length of the front clip, without reducing the size of the passenger compartment, would only have exacerbated the problems with the car’s proportions.
Any effort to downsize the “standard” domestic luxury car of that era had to start with a clean sheet of paper to be successful. Simply chopping a few inches off the deck of the car was not the answer. (That seems like the approach a perennially cash-starved company such as Chrysler or AMC would use.) The Continental proved this.
Awkward, eh? Sounds like a bone thrown at some worried dealers to me. I’m not sure how big the rich dowager market was, but I’d guess it was a) ugly-conscious, b) mostly uninterested in base models, and c) not that big to start with.
Well, I really wouldn’t mind a 1975 Seville sized – or ever so slightly larger, closer to mid-size territory rather than a pure “compact” – Cadillac for ’61, with a properly scaled-down version of the full size cars’ styling, which I like very much. Probably, based on the Y-Body platform – similar to the 6-window Buick Special sedan, but larger(ish), probably with a longer deck and proper FINS, of course! Probably wasn’t going to happen, though.
The short-deck version looks *weeeird*, on the other hand. You probably should’ve used actual photos in this article – paintings just don’t do justice to its sheer whackiness.
I was alive and very much a car freak when the 1961 Cadillacs debuted.
Compared to the exquisite 1960 models, the ‘61s were UGLY!
All of them!
A smooth, curved line running from its front fender eyebrows to rear fenders capped with sleek, shark like fins was replaced by a visibly shorter lump, chopped up side view with clumsily attached fins — four of them, to make matters worse — a weird-ass front fender line cut back from the grille … .
What were they thinking?
And yes, I have seen them in person. From the new 1961 Town Sedan in the Jos. H. Gray Cadillac-Pontiac showroom in 1961, to my friend’s father’s new 1961 in his driveway, to my neighbor’s used ‘61 in 1963–
“It was so cheap I couldn’t pass it up.”
That was then, the period in which my automotive tastes were formed: long, low, wide, and sleek.
I had the privilege of seeing ‘61 Town Sedan several years ago at a classic car dealership on Long Island, NY.
Guess what?
It didn’t look so bad!
After all these years of seeing short deck become tiny deck to, ultimately no deck, the Town Sedan looked pretty good!
Not as good as a ‘real” Cadillac, but nowhere near as fugly as I remembered.
There’s one on Hemmings (or ACC) right now, mis-identified as a deVille, at an “asking” price.
I still don’t want it.