Full Classic Series

Jon:

Thanks for that information, I will certainly concede that the classification committee has accepted quite a few production cars since the Cad 62. Most of the cars you list I thought had been accepted long ago, but I can see the list is more dynamic than I realized. I still think that implicit criticism about the Cad 62 status has made the classification process very conservative regarding production cars.

I would like to repeat the question from my earlier post about the classic status for the Model 80 Limited Buick from 1940. This car is a badge engineered version of the 1936-1939 Roadmaster which is not on the list. The production figures and prices for 38 and 39 cars are essentially the same as for 1940. Production was considerably greater for 36 and 37. I still don't understand why these ealier Model 80's are not on the list, while the 1940 series is.

Understand that including the model 80's would bring to the club the beautiful Phaetons that were produced in very limited quantities but enjoy a reasonable survival rate among collectors today.

Thanks for your work with the Classification Committee. While I may not agree with all the committee's conclusions, I do not doubt that the committee works very thoroughly and carefully. All this for no pay!

Bill

Albuquerque, NM

Bill,

I think your assesment of the 1940 Buick 80 Limited is right on the mark. I was not on the committee when this Series was considered, but knew of the action and wrote quite an extensive dissertation about it, outlining the exactness of the relation to prior year Roadmaster models. It passed anyway, very likely for the reason you suggest, the elegant convertible sedan. I suspect that it would not pass in today's environment. I am in the midst of some restoration work on a friend's 1937 80-C and have found it to be a very fine car with quality construction. The comment several have made, as our 47 Cadillac 62 sedan was sitting next to it, was the Buick had more Classic character than the Cadillac. My comment has generally been that the 62 Series is the very nicest non-classic Classic in the Classic Car Club. I haven't been shot yet!

Jon Lee

Jon:

Regarding your joke about the model 62 Cadillac, I must say that I jumped for joy when the CCCA admitted the model 62. No, I don't have one and it is not one of my favorite cars, but I thought it indicated that the CCCA was finally going to get around to broadening its list to include more good, solid, collectable luxury cars.

I think that recognizing the model 62 has been an enormous benefit to the club. The 62 has brought in many new members that are active in club events, like to tour, and bring new ideas and energy for all of us. It has provided another, more affordable entry level to the club. True, the Cad 62 is no Duesenberg, PA or senior Packard and it never will be, but the car is an attractive, well engineered and well built luxury car from the classic era. I cannot see how it threatens or dilutes the "real classics" from the ealier days of the club.

Now I am really bothered by what I see as overreaction of the club to complaints by some members who feel that admitting the 62 was a big mistake. The CCCA has responded by tightening up their selection criteria even harder -- when they should be looking for more opportunities like the Cad 62 to intelligently but carefully broaden the list of eligible cars.

I went to a funeral recently for a CCCA member here. He was quoted as saying that "collecting cars is not about the cars -- it's about collecting friends". The Cad 62 has brought quite a few friends into this club....

Bill

Abuquerque, NM

Bill, I completely agree that the real hobby is about the friends you meet. The cars just bring us together. The people are the interesting part. I?ve made hundreds of very good friends through CCCA and other car clubs.

In previous posts I have mentioned that the Cadillac 62?s have complicated things for the Club. Lest you think I am unhappy they were brought in, that would be far from the case. It's just that they give us a different perspective to view our list of ?approved cars?. Some people have more difficulty with that concept than others. Life might be simpler without these cars in the Club, but I certainly don't think it would be better.

Bill,

I understand your appreciation of the Cadillac 62. While I have just one in our garage at the moment, we have owned about a dozen 62 Series from 1940 through 1947. I like these cars and would not quarrel with any of the points you have made about them other than the idea that the inclusion of the 62 has brought along significant numbers of new members. During the O!Canada CARavan in September, several members, including myself, were looking over the cars in the hotel lot, and the discussion turned to the 62 Series Cadillac. We purposely looked over the 62 Cadillacs around us and noted the owners were all Club stalwarts rather than new members. Surely there was at least one "New" member driving a 62 Series Cadillac, but as I look throught the roster of the CARavan today, there is only one name I don't recognize. There were 21 Series 62 Cadillacs on this tour out of a total of 124 cars. This one model accounted for 17% of the total number of cars on the tour. At least 12 of those listed have other cars they have regulary used on CARavan, and likely more than that. The point I see is that the inclusion of a Series of cars of significant production numbers, a car of "modern" specification, a car of reasonably easy availability, like the 62, adds cars to the list rather than members. I would not suggest that the 62 should be "un" approved. I would hope that serious and long consideration would be given to the idea of including other series of similar (or less) qualification.

Chuck mentions a very important facet of this discussion in that life (CCCA related, anyway) might be easier without the addition of the 62. During this past year the Classification Committee has worked very hard to sort out the Pre-1925 "Virtually Identical" group of cars. When we began this project, no one really realized just how difficult and complicated a project this would be. One Board Member (now retired) warned of unforseen ramifications of accepting Pre-1925 cars. While I would not wish to rescind that change either, I can assure you that it complicates issues and raises many more questions than it answers. I guess I'm going to play Chicken Little relative to accepting other production series of large production.

Jon Lee

While I agree 62 series Cadillac should be CCCA classics, I think it is sad that so many members have taken the easy way out to drive them on CARavans instead of earlier cars they have. CARavans are supposed to be an opportunity for people to drive cars places they normally can't go. 1940's Cadillacs & Packards can be driven on the highway anytime, anywhere in my book. I am in favor of the pre 1934 CARavan. There was some talk about having one a few years ago, but it didn't happen because some thought it was too discriminatory against the newer cars. The Arizona Roadrunner CARavan a few years ago was advertised as a tour with a lot of "high speed" highway driving. Isn't that a bit discriminatory against 1920's cars?

One more point. As Jon stated, the 62 series Cadillacs were last last "large" series of cars allowed into the CCCA. The rest since then have been small series that have reletivly little impact on the club. I'll agree that letting in the 80 series Buicks, or the Chrysler Town & Countries wouldn't be the end of the world, but at what point, Buickplus, would you draw the line and not allow anymore "series" of cars form 1925 - 1948 in?

Please define "the kind of member that would be disruptive to our historical purpose". What was that old song..."We belong to a mutuuuuuallll... admiration society" ?

Friends:

Sounds to me like Jon is saying that many stalwart members of the club have grabbed onto the Cad 62 for Caravans while leaving the dual cowl at home because it is too hard to drive, unreliable, expensive, etc. Well, perhaps so, but is this not some of CCCA's own membership saying that it prefers to take a more modern, reliable and comfortable car on tour? To me, this says more about our aging membership and the state of highways today than about the Cad 62 being a problem. Those owners probably see the 62 as a solution.

You should recognize that there is a demand within and outside of the club for cars like the 62 so that folks can keep touring and enjoying events with the CCCA. If Caravan organizers think this is a problem, they should introduce incentives (like those mentioned by Stutznutz) to encourage the older and more conventional classics to tour. And plan tours that are possible to complete with older machinery.

If the Cad 62 is a problem it is that CCCA has too few cars with similar reliability and performance for members to choose from, hence the Caravans could become Cad 62 parades.

Finally, regarding Stutznutz' comment about closing out admission for other 25-48 "production" cars, I for one do not think it's appropriate to do that. Although this is almost the defacto position of the club today, I think what should (and should not) be on the list varies with time, the composition of the membership, and other unanticipated factors. I see no advantage to locking in this club to rules and regulations any more than it already is. I think the founders use of the term "fine and unusual" was intentionally vague, to give the club some flexibility in deciding what cars should be full classics.

Bill

Albuquerque, NM

to stir some debate, why is the 62 in but the Packard Junior 8 out?

To Anonymous:

I am not sure what a Packard Junior 8 is, I assume it is a 120 or some other non-classic 8 cylinder Packard.

I do not speak for the CCCA, but I think their position is as follows: The fact that the Packard you mention or any car might be comparable to the 62 Cadillac is irrelevant because admission of the Model 62 was a mistake that will not be repeated. The club is not willing to remove the model 62, because too many members have them and take the cars regularly on tour. But some members have griped so much about them that they don't want to add any more cars of similar quality.

In short, the fact that a car is comparable to the Cad 62 is no argument to give the car classic status, indeed it will probably disqualify the car immediately!

I for one do not agree with this position, but that seems to be the way it is.

Happy Holidays!

Bill

Albuquerque, NM

To Anonymous & Buickplus,

I've been out of town, so you get my apologies for the lateness of this response. While I don't pretend to say there are not anomalies and inconsistencies in the CCCA approved list, there will have to be some line drawn at some point. That line will always be arbitrary and there will always be cars that are too close to it on either side. If the Club fails to draw some line and give some degree of meaning to that line... well, the AACA is doing a wonderful job filling the spot of an all-inclusive club and does not need the help of our relatively small organization. Enough of this pontification and on to the salient points.

A fair amount of the reasoning for the inclusion of the 62 Series Cadillac and the exclusion of the 120 Packard can be illustrated with a comparison on the 1941 models.

1941 Cadillac 6219 Touring Sedan, 5 passenger

Base price $1495

Weight 4030 lbs

Engine size and HP 346 cid, 150 hp

1941 Packard 4 door Touring Sedan, 5 passenger

Base price $1291

Weight 3510

Engine size and HP 282 cid, 120 hp

While it is interesting to note that the Packard is on a 127" wheelbase and the Cadillac 126", the Cadillac cost 16% more, is 15% heavier, the engine is rated 25% more horsepower and is 23% larger in capacity. In specific terms, the Cadillac is more powerful, more costly and heavier than the 120 Packard. While that certainly does not damn the 120, it does make one ask to look at what the Packard is more comparable to. How about the 41 Buick Century, model 61 Touring Sedan?

$1288

4239 lbs

320 cid 8 cyl @ 165 hp

Still heavier and more power than the Packard, but the price is almost spot-on. The 120 was merchandised head-to-head with the Buick Century and did a fine job of competition with production of 17,100 to the Buick Century at 20,768.

Does that justify the choice or raise more questions?

Jon Lee

Jon:

I agree with your case that the 120 Packard was aimed at a less expensive market than the Cad 62, though that alone should not disqualify the car from the CCCA. The fact is that there are other production cars comparable to the Cad 62 in terms of price, weight and production quantity that are not admitted to the club. I cite the recently rejected Buick model 80's (Roadmasters) from 1936-39 that I have mentioned before. I am sure there are other examples.

Seems to me that the club has overreacted to flak about the model 62 by rejecting just about any production car that might be construed as being similar to the 62.

Bill

Albuquerque, NM