Cadillac balanced ride and handling as time went on, maybe because it was getting harder for older folks that bought these cars new to handle them at their old age when your reflexes start to sharply decline. I do notice that my 64 feels more marshmallowy in the back compared to previously owned 72, and 68 Deville. I also believe this is what contributes to the Cadillac "Float" and that disconnected feeling. And could be the cause of the serious tail wagger in the rear, but it also allows the rear suspension to flex more, and to adjust to bad road conditions because the ball joint can move in a 360 degree direction which gives the rear end far greater control in overall movement than a typical 4 link design. Now if you look at the singular upper control arm with the ball joint, this allows for a much more rotational movement all around. They also went from using a singular upper control arm right above center part of the differential with a ball joint type design, to actual separate upper control arms, thus making the Cadillacs a true "4 Link Rear Suspension". I know Cadillac changed the rear suspension design in 65 to placing the rear coil springs on the axle, instead of the lower rear trailing control arms. My other question to you guys, is to the ones that have owned X-Framed Cads and full-sized Cads that were were built after 64 up until 76, did you notice any differences in how the cars drove? Was one better than the other? Is the X-Frame a more rigid, a more solid design? Because as wonderful as the late 50's and early 60's Caddies are, many people point out that if they had any weaknesses at all, it s was the X-Frame. I wanted to ask you all what are your thoughts regarding the differences of the 2 frames, and why did Cadillac claim that the X frame chassis is more rigid than the typical perimeter frame that was generally a standard way for manufacturers to build cars in that time?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |