82 years ago this month, V16 introduced

[Guest South_paw]

Newspaper article from January 3rd, 1930. Press release from Cadillac introducing the V-16 in New York. Have a read.

[Rusty_OToole]

The Cadillac V16, one of the great flopperoos of all time. When they announced it they said production would be limited to 5000 units the first year. What a laugh. They produced that pig for 10 years and never sold 5000 units the whole time.

A magnificent looking car but it was a technical dead end as well as a sales disaster.

[Guest straight shooter]

Why was it a flopperoos and technical dead end? Was it unreliable or more like impractical and to expensive. :confused:

[Rusty_OToole]

It was a sales failure because it sold less than 1/10th as many as they intended to sell.

It was a dead end in the sense that it was not widely copied and started no trends. Within a few years such huge hand made luxury cars were made obsolete by much smaller, but still large 8 cylinder mass produced cars that offered practically as much room, comfort and performance in a smaller package. In other words luxury car design developed along completely different lines, leaving the V16 Cadillac to die out like the Dodo birds.

The car itself was magnificent.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Guest straight shooter]

Thanks for clearing things up for me.

[Restorer32]

I guess that's why Cadillac 16's, Duesenbergs, and 12 cylinder Packards seldom bring more than scrap price at auction.

[TexRiv_63]

The Cadillac 16 was a major shot fired in the multicylinder wars of the early 30s and put them in the status driver's seat for a short time. The 16 and its 12 offshoot were visually beautiful art deco design and marketing genius, the only problem was that pesky depression. If the economy had not tanked that 16 would have just been the beginning.

[Guest daytona]

I wouldn’t say it was one of the great flopperoos of all time just because it did not sell what Cadillac was hoping it would. The same could be said for the Chrysler Airflow, not an attractive car, in my opinion but just because both did not meet their makers sales figures does not make them flopperoos. The 16 was not necessary, they could have easily done it with the 12 but why not make a statement with the 16. It was built to impress and it did, when you pulled up in 16 people noticed and that is what it was meant to do. The 16 was and is a great American car that outsold any other makers 16 buy a huge margin. I think calling it Pig especially on this forum is uncalled for but that's just my opinion.

Martin Cooke

[alsancle]

If collectors valued cars based on their sales as opposed to their technical & artistic value we would all be collecting VW Beatles, Chevettes and the Model T. The Duesenberg, Stutz, Marmon V16 were all sales flops. In fact, just about any car I care about was a pig and a sales "flop".

[Guest BJM]

I respectfully disagree with Rusty. And while I am thinking about it, a big thanks to SOUTHPAW for posting this most interesting article.

Rusty,

The article dates from 1930 when as you know the Great Depression was starting to impact the markets Cadillac anticipated when they started V16 development in the mid 1920's.

Product development was tortoise slow back then, so the fact that Cadillac only made 5000 of these cars is irrelevant vis a vis their 5000 per year prediction. The market evaporated.

The motor itself may not have been a lightning rod for innovation that we saw them in other makes but it was an impressive engine. Most people I know agree the Marmon or the Packards were better motors.

[Dandy Dave]

I guess that's why Cadillac 16's, Duesenbergs, and 12 cylinder Packards seldom bring more than scrap price at auction.

.... I'll gladly take any of these oinkers that you want to throw at me for scrap price if you also include Pierce in the list. Call BR-549, and ask for Jr. Samples.

[Rusty_OToole]

The V16 is a valuable collector's item and so is a stuffed Dodo bird. Neither survives today.

The Chrysler Airflow is a completely different story. It was both a commercial success and a technical success.

Walter Chrysler wanted to bring out something sensational to celebrate the 10 anniversary of the Chrysler car. His engineering team came up with the Airflow. It was brought out as a premium model at a premium price, alongside the more conventional Airstream.

The Airflow sold well given its high price and avante garde design. It sold a far higher percentage of Chrysler sales than the V12 and V16 combined did of Cadillac sales.

It was also a technical success in that it was copied by practically every car manufacturer in the world. The Airflow was in production from 1934 to 1937. Look at the typical 1933 and 1934 (pre Airflow) car. Then look at the typical 1938 (after the Airflow). Every car in America by that time followed the Airflow silhouette with bulkier fenders.

There were also direct copies made in England, France, Sweden and Japan and possibly other places as well.

It was luxury cars like the Airflow that made the V16 Cadillac obsolete. They offered nearly the same room, quiet, comfortable ride, and performance in a smaller cheaper mass produced package.

[TG57Roadmaster]

The V16 is a valuable collector's item and so is a stuffed Dodo bird. Neither survives today.

The Chrysler Airflow is a completely different story. It was both a commercial success and a technical success.

Walter Chrysler wanted to bring out something sensational to celebrate the 10 anniversary of the Chrysler car. His engineering team came up with the Airflow. It was brought out as a premium model at a premium price, alongside the more conventional Airstream.

The Airflow sold well given its high price and avante garde design. It sold a far higher percentage of Chrysler sales than the V12 and V16 combined did of Cadillac sales.

It was also a technical success in that it was copied by practically every car manufacturer in the world. The Airflow was in production from 1934 to 1937. Look at the typical 1933 and 1934 (pre Airflow) car. Then look at the typical 1938 (after the Airflow). Every car in America by that time followed the Airflow silhouette with bulkier fenders.

There were also direct copies made in England, France, Sweden and Japan and possibly other places as well.

It was luxury cars like the Airflow that made the V16 Cadillac obsolete. They offered nearly the same room, quiet, comfortable ride, and performance in a smaller cheaper mass produced package.

Has April Fool's Day come early?

Rusty, c'mon, most people appreciate the Airflows for what they were, the trails they blazed and their eventual influence on the industry. But pitting an Airflow against a Cadillac V-16 is like comparing apples to rutabagas.

For 1934, series by series, Chrysler simply wasn't in the same market as Cadillac. Sure, they had the Airflow Custom Imperial Eight (CW) on its 146"whb, 4 models, all sedans priced at $5,000 and $5,145, with 67 produced. Cadillac's Sixteen catalogued 15 models on a 154"whb ranging in price from $7.100 to $9,250, with 60 made.

Step down next to the Airflow Imperial Eight (CX) on its 137.5"whb, all sedans again, priced at $2,245 and $2,345 with 173 made, and only then you begin to get close to comparable Cadillac territory, the 355D 20-Series with 2.729 built (136" whb, $2,745 to $3,145). This excludes all Cadillac 355D Eight 30's ($3,495 to $$5,795, 336 prod.) and Twelves ($4,195 to $6,495, 683 prod.) on the 146"whb.

Then there's the least-expensive Airflow Imperial Eight (CV) on its 128"whb, one coupe, two sedans, 2,450 made, all priced at $1,625. Cadillac's 355D Series-10 saw 2,015 copies, priced between $2,545 and $2,695 in six body styles.

Yes, Chrysler sold 8,389 Airflow Eights (CU) for 1934, but they were priced in the range of Buick, LaSalle, Hupmobile and the Auburn 12. I haven't even gone into Cadillac's superior horsepower ratings for '34, just touched on price and whb comparisons. A more apt comparo would pit, let's say, a '36 Lincoln-Zephyr with a '36 Airflow, both similar in price, whb, and power. By '37, only Chrysler soldiered on with the Airflow, DeSoto having vacated the design at the end of 1936 (but you know that already).

As for the comment about 1938 cars, it would be 1940 before the headlights-in-the-full-fendered-look came into vogue across the board; purely for discussion's sake (please, no hate mail!). Was it the Airflow that influenced that design evolution, perhaps, but what may have influenced the Airflow?

Except for the free-standing headlights and upright greenhouse, look at this Citroen from the 1929 Concours d'Elegance of Paris...

Larger

Or these two Chenard-Walckers from a 1930 French Salon...

Larger, Citroen and Chenard-Walckers from Dover's, "The Golden Age of the Luxury Car," 1980.

Granted, these were one-offs and not production cars, but let's remember that auto designers and engineers criss-crossed the Atlantic annually looking for inspiration, and these pre-date the Airflow by at least four to five years.

Personally, I'd love to have any Airflow in my garage and likely could even afford one; I've admired them since the first time I saw one. And though I have similar feelings for multi-cylinder 1934 Cadillacs, it'll take a lottery win to ever acquire one. Even a swb sedan that "needs a little TLC"...

TG

[PONTIAC1953]

well rusty, i have to disagree with you, those classic V16 cars of the thirties were what other lesser brands wish they could have built. the first cadillac V16 design was an art deco work of art, the second cadillac V16 design was an awesome piece of engineering, 135 degree flathead V16 was pretty much two straight eights sharing the same crankshart. it's too bad the 1970 cadillac V12 engine wouldn't pass california's smog requirements, the V16's was another way that cadillac set the standard for the world. charles coker, 1953 pontiac tech advisor.

[alsancle]

I think he is joking.

[Rusty_OToole]

I am not joking or jesting. For years I have been listening to unthinking people repeating the old GM propaganda lies about the "Airflop" . The idea that the Airflow was a failure is a flat out lie.

This is what got me thinking about the Cadillac V16, among other classics. Much as it pains me to say, the ultra luxury V16 and V12 and OHC straight eights like Duesenberg and Stutz, were put out of business by such prosaic mass produced cars as the Buick 90, Chrysler Imperial, Cadillac V8 and Lincoln Zephyr.

The ultra luxury jobs cost a lot more in first cost, gas mileage, tires, and general upkeep. But did not offer very much more in the way of performance, comfort or interior room. At least not enough to tempt very many people.

The luxury car of the forties, fifties and sixties turned out to be a more or less conventional mass produced eight cylinder car with automatic trans, air conditioning and power accessories. Not a 12 or 16 cylinder monster the size of a fire engine. The Airflow was actually the first of the breed and set the trend all the others followed. There was a lot more to the Airflow design than the streamlined body.

[alsancle]

This is one of those discussions where you are talking about apples and everybody else is talking about oranges. My interest in cars is strictly related to their beauty, engineering and history. I do not care about their impact on their manufacturer or what their profit margin per unit was.

The use of the word "PIG" was just inflammatory because I'm willing to bet that most of the posters here don't really care about a car's market share either. There are many "market success" stories that I would have sent to the scrapper if I owned them. Great transportation for their time and worthless collectables (to me).

[Restorer32]

Different strokes for different strokes. Did Levitown put the mansion builders out of business?

[Restorer32]

different folks that is

[Guest BillSides]

On April 4th my V/16 4375 Imperial limousine will be 82 years old and that will also be close to when it goes back on the roads but in Australia not its birth country of America . It is currently having its moth eaten interior renewed. I am interested in corresponding with other owners and those who may have a few bits laying around to allow me to complete it fully correctly, mainly front shocks, rear right rear ashtray and intercom button and anything else for this fine if a bit over the top rarity.

Bill Sides

Melbourne Australia.

[Guest Oracle]

Art Deco in the UK: 1935 Singer Airstream

By 1934 the firm was producing four and six cylinder engines from 8hp to 18hp with side valves, overhead valves, overhead camshafts...the lot! It was also in 1934 that Singers produced the "Airstream", a streamlined pillarless four door saloon with built-in headlamps. Jack Payne, the dance band leader, liked it clearly for other reasons-he bought fourteen, all in the same colour, for the members of his band.

As regards the V-16 Caddy, these were exported and offered in the UK. although the one owned by Workmate inventor and Lotus Cars designer, Ron Hickman on Jersey, is an ex-Maharajah car. It has however been featured on a Jersey stamp!

1931 CADILLAC V-16 SPORTS PHAETON SERIES 452-A, FLEETWOOD BODY, ENGINE # 702927

Now that I have checked, they were offered here 1930-32

1930:

MODEL 452A V-16 57.5 H.P. LIMOUSINE LAUNDELETTE

BY CARROSSERIES VAN DEN PLAS, S.A., BRUSSELS, BELGIUM

MODEL 452A V-16 57.5 H.P. “IMPERIAL” LIMOUSINE?

MODEL 452A V-16 57.5 H.P. “FLEETWOOD” LIMOUSINE

[Larry Schramm]

Dog gone that depression. I am sure it had no affect on high end vehicles. Let think Cord, Auburn, Dusenberg. They all survived fine and were building cars after the war. Cadillac and Lincoln survived because they were part of a larger diverse company. If there is no money, then there is no sales.

[J3Studio]

Thanks for posting the article!

[alsancle]

Not just the lack of money in the depression but the reticence of those with money to display it.

[sambarn]

I personally have to believe that the PIG comment was primarily used when compared to the Gordon Buehrig designed Marmon 16. 500 CID All Aluminum, central carburetor (the first ever) engine that had been in planning since around '26. Cadillac just bolted two eights together to beat Marmon to market, creating the ugliest, slowest and cheapest 16 cylinder vehicle to ever hit the market.IMHO. (It is still really pretty though!!)

[caddyshack]

What a great discussion. V-16's to Airflows, how do I choose between those two? Well, being a Cad guy I guess I will stick with the V-16. For you Airflow history buffs, there was a coach-builder (Fred Bergholt) in MN. that built a streamline, aluminum body, and installed it on a 32 Ford frame. He tried to sell his design to the major auto manufacturer's in Detroit in late '32 or early '33 and was turned away by all of them because they felt he was to futuristic in his design. Chrysler however, infringed on some of his ideas in the production of the Airflow. Fred sued, and won a lawsuit against the auto giant for patent infringement. I knew Fred and saw his scrapbook that covered the whole trial. Wish I had the book today.

Fred also drove a V-16 white Cadillac that was used while promoting his cosmetics business during the early and mid 30's, how ironic.

The streamline auto that was used to promote his coach-building business was restored after Fred's death and was sold at Hersheys auction in 2010 I believe.

Some will call it ugly, or whatever, but I consider it the true airflow. Just my opinion.

[jdome]

I personally have to believe that the PIG comment was primarily used when compared to the Gordon Buehrig designed Marmon 16. 500 CID All Aluminum, central carburetor (the first ever) engine that had been in planning since around '26. Cadillac just bolted two eights together to beat Marmon to market, creating the ugliest, slowest and cheapest 16 cylinder vehicle to ever hit the market.IMHO. (It is still really pretty though!!)

What? LOL. The only thing sillier than the "pig" comment are the attempts to defend it. "ugliest, slowest & cheapest 16 ever to hit the market"? You mean as compared to all those other more successful V16's. I think total cadillac 16 production was just shy of 4,000 units but that is far more than all the other 16's combined.

[Dandy Dave]

I had an old friend that said he had one of these old second hand Caddys back in the 40's, and early 50's. He said it took him 8 weeks to change the spark plugs as he could only afford to buy two at a time when he was a young fellow and first got the car. Dandy Dave!

[Guest Nancy DeWitt]

It may not have been a commercial success, but we're sure delighted to have a V-16 Caddy in our museum. Can't wait for the snow to melt so I can go for a ride in it. Thanks for sharing the article, South_paw!

[jdome]

Some bits of information that ties some of this discussion together. Owen Nacker is credited as the lead designer of the Cadillac V12/V16 engine project. He was an engineer for Marmon before coming to work for Cadillac. Cadillac didn't just slap two 8s together to beat Marmon. Packard was Cadillac's target. Cadillac's 12/16 had been under development for 3 years before it came to market.

The Chrysler Airflow was not the trend setter as purported earlier in this thread. Cadillac had Fleetwood build a streamlined V16 "Aero-Dynamic Coupe" for the GM exhibit at the 1933 Chicago Century of Progress Exposition. The car was called a coupe but it was configured as a 4 passenger 2-door. The car had a split windshield and all steel, long sweeping, slant back roof line. The rear license plate area was inset into the rear deck lid. It had pontoon fenders and sculpted aluminum running boards that make the pontoon fenders appear to be free floating. The sleek body had the traditional V16 front end. If you cut off 3/4ths of the hood and give it an ugly pug nose, it might pass for an Airflow. OR remove the running boards all together and replace the front grill with a coffin nose and it looks like a Cord Westchester. Quoting the author's description of the 33 Aero Dynamic Coupe in the Crest Line book, "80 Years of Cadillac & LaSalle": "Gordon Buehrig, who at the time was working for GM, was very much impressed with this design and adopted its basic shape for his famed Cord 810 in 1936." I doubt the 810 Cord would be as highly regarded today if Buehrig decided to plagiarize an ugly pug nosed Airflow with scrawny fenders. Yuck.

[Guest daytona]

Thank you JDOME for setting the record straight. How anyone could think the 16 was two Cadillac V8s together is beyond me. They are not even close in design or even type. Comparing the airflow with the 16 really is apples and oranges they were both great cars in their own way. Martin Cooke

[jdome]

That's correct. The V8 was a flathead. The 16 was OHV. It had a cast aluminum crankcase with 2 iron cylinder blocks and 2 iron valve heads on top of the cylinders. That may have given it the appearance of 2 inline motors but you can say that about any V type engine. Packard proudly marketed their V12 as the "twin-6."

There is a reason that a V16 design is sort of the holy grail of luxury engines. With 16 pistons it can be timed to fire a cylinder every 90 degrees of rotation without the need for counter weights. That also produces a near continuous power stroke with a high torque curve producing extremal smooth acceleration. The Cadillac engine had mechanical lifters but each lifter had unique hydraulic silencer that eliminated the backlash noise of similar engines of its time. It is an extremely smooth, powerful and quiet engine, not necessairly fast but just what was needed to move 3 tons of ultimate luxury.

The V16 should have could have been a commercial success, if not for the market crash. The 5,000 per year claim was realistic when the claim was made. Cadillac production peaked at 40,000 cars in 1928 plus another 15,000 LaSalles. They projected 50,000 V8s and 5,000 V16s were reasonable numbers but the market crash killed their sales. Total sales for 1932 dropped to about 9,000 units: 8s, 12s, 16s and LaSalles combined. And Cadillac faired better than most other luxury builders.

[Guest BillSides]

The Marmon sold less than the Cadillac V/16 yet had the same designer but it was a corrosion nightmare and not as smooth or quiet and that may be why they sold less. The Cadillac iron blocks and heads are practical and alloy is used sensibly in it. It also had a counterbalanced crank, and hydraulic valve silencers that were missing in the Marmon. Cadillac admitted they copied Europe's best hence its Isotta Franchini look grill and appearance like my Belgian made 40 HP Minerva has, but both were designed some years prior. The Cadillac V/16 engine was an attempt to match Minerva's superb sleeve valve engine and has appearance similarities. The Minerva is heavier, a smaller displacement motor and higher gearing yet it pulls better in top gear, has better fuel economy and uses less oil! The Minerva engine is much less demanding as nothing must be synchronised, it has a fraction of the internal parts and very few adjustments. The 1930 Cadillac V/16 is a milestone car although a sales failure. My black 4375 limousine makes people gasp on seeing it and under the hood it is spectacular but I am not sure what part of it can honestly be called Art Deco but my similarly priced Minerva's Belgian body and fittings are certainly high Art Deco and better made and it was an even bigger sales failure!

Bill Sides Melbourne