Early 1940's Cadillac convertibles vs Lincoln convertibles

[Guest straight shooter]

I would like to know which cars do you people prefer and are more sought after the early 1940's Cadillac convertibles or the Lincoln Continental convertibles. I have always been torn between the two? The 41 and newer Cadillac convertibles seems to be ahead of their time in terms of styling but the Lincolns all have v12 engines. I would also like to know which drive better and are more reliable and which are easier to get parts for? Thanks for your help and opinions.

[West Peterson]

Cadillac is much more powerful and reliable, hands down. We own both. The Lincoln could be reliable, but you have to get over the coil and water pump problems. Once those have been modified, I think you're okay. The Cadillacs were available with an automatic transmission, which is nice, too.

[alsancle]

My personal opinion is the styling on the Lincoln is great but the V12 is a dog. People seem to love to drive the Cadillac. People hate to drive behind a Lincoln.

[Guest bkazmer]

At the risk of introducing unwanted options, I'd argue the Senior Buick and Packard both offered better engineering than either Cadillac or Lincoln.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

If you intend to drive any distance choose the Cad.

It is not that unusual to see a Lincoln described as "converted to Cadillac OHV in the 50s" Never, ever, seen a Caddy converted to a Lincoln V-12.

Flathead Fords and Olds engines, I think also were done - it seems an amazing % of these cars were converted considering the low overall production volumes.

The engine is the only thing that has kept me from one of these wonderfully styled cars, which I think also holds prices down but it is a big thing...

[Guest straight shooter]

At the risk of introducing unwanted options, I'd argue the Senior Buick and Packard both offered better engineering than either Cadillac or Lincoln.

Unwanted options are appreciated and encouraged. Someone once also told me that Buicks and Packards were better when it came to engineering. What I have never understood is how Buick had better engineering when Cadillac was General Motors Flagship line. :confused:

[West Peterson]

Never, ever, seen a Caddy converted to a Lincoln V-12.

Ours was converted with a Cadillac V-8 by Andy Granatelli... we converted it back.

[West Peterson]

What I have never understood is how Buick had better engineering when Cadillac was General Motors Flagship line. :confused:

Harlow Curtice at Buick was someone who liked to push the envelope, as far as company hierarchy was concerned. Two years ago, I drove, back-to-back, the Buick and Cadillac. Both were well-sorted vehicles. If was a buyer, I would have bought the Buick.

[Guest straight shooter]

Interesting reading, I never knew that the Lincoln flathead V12's were so weak I always thought that they were equal if not more powerful than the competitors V8's or straight 8's. If the Lincoln flathead v12's lacked power than how were the Ford flathead v8's?

[Grandpa]

I feel that Ford did a nice job of styling the Lincoln Continental, but did little to refine an obsolete chassis. The Continental V-12 is a poor engine and many have been replaced by Cadillac engines. The Continentals have transverse springs front and rear with a sold front axle through the 1948 model year. The Cadillacs of the same period were a much better engineered car.

Grandpa

[trimacar]

I had a friend long ago that had a Lincoln Continental V-12 apart in his shop, I was shocked at how small it was, what were they, 267 cubic inches or so? For a V-12?

For some reason, Buicks have always been some of the best driving cars I've had the pleasure of being behind the wheel of...that sounds like poor English for some reason....but Cad vx. LC, I think the Cadillac wins....

[Guest bkazmer]

Buick in fact did get"caught" - the Limited was discontinued, in part because it was direct competition to Cadillac.

[Grandpa]

I agree with the comments about the Buicks of the 1940 to 1948 time period. They are great driving cars and the 320 cubic inch ohv engine in the Centurys & Roadmasters will out run a Cadillac flat head engine of that era. I owned a 1947 Cadillac Series 62 Sedanette for several years. Even with a rebuilt engine in the Cadillac it had poor acceleration, but was rock steady when it eventually got up to highway speeds.

Grandpa

[Steve_Mack_CT]

West, my point was Cads going into Lincolns is/was common practice, not the other way around, but maybe that was not clear...

Anyway, I bet you got your speeding ticket under Cadillac power, not the V-12??

Did you convert back for AACA/CCCA show purposes? having a period repower would not bother me but it really limits where you can show the car. Also, as a follow up to Helfen's discussion I don't think CCCA would want you to tour with them in such a car, but I am not 100% sure on that.

[V.Milke]

I happen to have 3 of the 4 cars mentioned... just missing the Buick.

My '41 Continental is a GOOD car to drive, fast and agile, but I agree with everything said about it's old fashioned chassis (transverse leaf springs both front and rear). Engine is sort of 'rough', in the Ford way. Transmission, unfortunately, is 3 speed manual, with no overdrive, which it badly needs once up to about 55 mph. I haven't used the car in about 2 years because of the engine's main problem... they tend to develop low oil pressure problems, and I don't want to risk breaking it, and no money now and too many projects to look into doing it now.

My 1940 Cadillac is a VERY GOOD car to drive. Engine is smooth and silent. The only transmission available, 3 speed with no overdrive, is great and I haven't missed the use of an overdrive, to speeds up to about 65 mph.

Now... to throw on a bit of unsolicited opinion. If you want a car fom the early 40's, get a senior Packard. That is a GREAT car to drive. Mine is a 1941 180, with the 160hp 356 ci engine. It is an incredibly smooth, silent and very powerful engine. In my case, unfortunately, it doesn't have an overdrive or the electromatic clutch, but anyhow, it is a fantastic car to drive.

My two cents...

Victor

[West Peterson]

We took the Lincoln on several CCCA CARavans before putting the V-12 back in. We were never told we couldn't, although I'm not sure we weren't breaking the rule. As long as you don't open the hood, nobody really knows.... except that it went so fast.

Yes, I got my first speeding ticket in that car with the Granatelli V-8 in it. I was 16, or maybe 15 with a learner's permit. Shows you how long we've owned it, I'm 52 now, and we owned it for at least 4 years before I got my license.

We're planning on showing it at the AACA Grand National in June... if we can get the coil problem fixed.

[West Peterson]

I happen to have 3 of the 4 cars mentioned... just missing the Buick.

My '41 Continental is a GOOD car to drive, fast and agile, but I agree with everything said about it's old fashioned chassis (transverse leaf springs both front and rear). Engine is sort of 'rough', in the Ford way. Transmission, unfortunately, is 3 speed manual, with no overdrive, which it badly needs once up to about 55 mph. I haven't used the car in about 2 years because of the engine's main problem... they tend to develop low oil pressure problems, and I don't want to risk breaking it, and no money now and too many projects to look into doing it now.

My 1940 Cadillac is a VERY GOOD car to drive. Engine is smooth and silent. The only transmission available, 3 speed with no overdrive, is great and I haven't missed the use of an overdrive, to speeds up to about 65 mph.

Now... to throw on a bit of unsolicited opinion. If you want a car fom the early 40's, get a senior Packard. That is a GREAT car to drive. Mine is a 1941 180, with the 160hp 356 ci engine. It is an incredibly smooth, silent and very powerful engine. In my case, unfortunately, it doesn't have an overdrive or the electromatic clutch, but anyhow, it is a fantastic car to drive.

My two cents...

Victor

Thanks for your input, Victor.

We (fathers, brothers) own all four

Two V-12 Lincolns... '40 and '42 (both needing coil and/or water pump fixes)

Two 1941 Cadillacs with 3-speed manuals (one with Hydramatic rear-end)

One 1946 Cadillac (Hydramatic)

Four 1940-42 Packard 180s (three with overdrive)

one 1940 Buick 90

Between Packard and Buick, I think you'd find people could argue all day long as to which was more powerful, but those were the two most powerful cars available at the time... with the big engines in both cases, of course. The main problem the Packard 356 engine has, is that it's not the easiest engine to rebuild and is very expensive to do, whereas the Buick is pretty straight forward, and much less costly.

[trimacar]

West, I'm sorta surprised that the Granatellis used a Cadillac engine, a supercharged Studebaker V-8 (R-2 or R-3, or even an R5 with twin superchargers!) would have been REALLY fast!

I've worked on late 30's Packard engines, and yes, they're harder to rebuild because of the counterweights on the crankshaft, to do it correctly they have to be removed and replaced (or you can't polish the entire width of the rod journal, as counterweight is in the way). Not an easy job......

[Sweepspear]

While I have no direct hands on experience with the Cadillacs of the time, I did drive my Father's '40 Continental quite frequently. He and I both drove it on several long road trips.

With the Columbia 2 speed rear axle the car would cruise along at 60 -70 mph all day without complaint. I thought it was great road car.

It was my Father's opinion that the Lincoln V-12 got a bum rap because of lack of maintenance. One of the main contributors to this was It didn't have a dipstick where you could visually see the condition of the oil when you checked the level, but had a float type indicator that visually showed the oil level.

Looks full, everything is fine right?

They were more likely to just have oil added to them, than to have regular oil changes, which shortened their service life.

[V.Milke]

West: That is quite a 'stable of througbreds', congratulations! A 180 with overdrive has to be a delight to drive, and you have 3 of them!

I have to say that my Lincoln gave several years of very good service with it's original V-12, though I already got it with cast iron heads, versus the original aluminum ones (1940 and 1941). A friend of mine heavily cautioned me not to go back to the aluminum ones. I got it when I was just entering college and used it as my daily transport for a while, as I had to sell my everyday car in order to afford the Lincoln (by the way, I had met my girlfried for 15 days only when I told her about the change in cars and she said: "you do that and you can forget about me"; luckily, we have been married for 20 years plus the 4 years as boyfriends before that, and I still have the car).

I did change the coil for another used one when the first one started giving trouble... the water pumps gave no trouble ever... but I have read in the past about the oil pressure problems in the engine. I have read of oil pump kits to adapt that will take care of the low oil pressure... one that will actually raise it and another one that will give a 'high volume or flow', but I can't remember now which one is the best one to solve the V12's problems. I should find out and get one soon to get the car back on the road again.

As a reference, I read that even since new, they rarely survived the 30,000 miles. I have had good luck with mine. One small piece of advice that I was given is you should never lug and engine of this type. Better to keep them happy, a little revved up.

As to the original question, Lincoln vs. Cadillac (and only those two), even though the Lincoln's engine in good condition drives well, if you want a car you can really enjoy without any trouble, the Cadillac would be my option.

Victor

[Guest Water Jacket]

You're getting good advice from the above folks. But, assuming you don't live in the midst of gridlock, and have some open roads where you can enjoy the car, and it's a hobby car, hardly a commute car, you should buy what you want, what clicks for you.

The above poster's admonishment to never, ever, lug a Lincoln Zephyr (Continental) engine is the best adviso. They had the least torque per displacement of any domestic car in the nation back then, Crosley included. Also change the oil and filter now and then. By-pass oil filters are fine. You just have to drive 70-80 miles before ALL the oil goes through the filter.

The Zephyr/Continental engine in the '40s was 292-ci, for most of its run. Lincoln briefly bored it to 305-ci but that was too much. People in the day who drove them fast, wound them up in every gear, never, ever lugged them, got good service. They were, and are, open road cars. You have to remember that there are nearly a third of a billion people in the US today, and overpopulation is killing our old cars as well as the planet. Overdrive or a Columbia rear axle in such a car is paramount. In 1941, you could theoretically get BOTH overdrive and a Columbia rear axle, or an all up final gearing of 2.19:1. Probably okay in Kansas on the level with a tail wind.

1936-47 Cadillac L-head V-8s are good, smooth engines, but they did suffer cracked blocks at the valve seats. If a Cad from '41 on, and it's a stick, find one with the 3.31:1 "economy" rear axle instead of the standard 3.77:1. The 3.31 came standard in the HydraMatic jobs, but what's sporting about an automatic transmission in a vintage/classic car? HydraMatic was a convenience, not performance, feature, the kind of gadget that sells cars. But you may be less of a road car kinda guy.

Personal preference will decide.

A senior Buick is a better car, so long as you find the rare, no-cost optional 3.6:1 rear axle introduced in 1939.

A Packard One-Twenty, One-Sixty, or One-Eighty on the standard 127-inch wheelbase with overdrive is the best road car of the day. I've nothing against long wheelbases, i just prefer the shorter wheelbases and less weight in any car.

A Packard nine-main 356 is expensive to rebuild. But, if done right and you keep oil and water in it, and have overdrive, you'll be fine "for the duration," as they said in War II.

A Packard One-Twenty has plenty of power, torque,

and costs much less to rebuild, assuming whatever you wind up buying needs rebuilding.

But you really need to buy whatever clicks for you.

1940-41 Continentals are lovely cars. My 'umble opine is that the '42-'48 Continentals are hideous, overblown boats.

It really comes down to what you want to look at.

Often think if i hadn't Packards all these years, i'd be happy with a 1946-49 MG-TC. Absolutely useless in the real world, even driving light suburban traffic would be a workout for it, and 78 mph in razor tune with a tail wind is about it, so not a lotta fun on the freeway. But it has "the look." As does a 1940-41 Lincoln Continental.

So buy whatever you really, truly want. Because you'll be inspired to care for it, drive it the way it needs to be driven. It's critical that ANY car be rebuilt correctly.

Something else to remember. Lotta idiots seem to like parades, sitting in their cars with their engines idling, doing the ego conga line at suburban car shows. In the day, people pulled over to the side of the road during long trips, had a cup of coffee, stretched, relaxed. In hot weather, they pulled over if the car got hot. Just because something was a fine car in the 1940s doesn't mean it's game for today's routine suburban/metro traffic. Domestic population in the '40s was only 40% of today's, and people walked more, took trolleys. You want whatever of the above cars you buy to last, drive it like they did in the day, not like it's a late model Camry.

Relax. Have fun. Don't buy anything until it clicks on all burners, head, heart, gut, kinda like a woman.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Water Jacket (see edit history)

[West Peterson]

Excellent points.

I'd like to add, though, that I was always leery of the Hydramatics. I drove one a couple of years ago (1947 fastback), and I was very impressed. It was not a slouch, and it even changed my mind about wanting one. I really enjoyed driving it.

[Guest Bill Miller]

I have been a fan of the prewar Continentals ever since I first saw one as a child on one of the early Thin Man movies with William Powell and Myrna Loy. You just can't beat the styling, it's really timeless. Having said that, I confess I own a 1941 Cadillac sedan and don't own a Continental (yet). Even though many folks rave over the 1941 Cadillac as a milestone car and beautiful example of technological styling, to me it just doesn't hold a candle for looks to the Continental. The reason I didn't buy the latter is that I saw that many of them for sale had their motors yanked and replaced with V-8's. I see the same thing with 12 cylinder Jaguars and that tells me something about long-term engine reliablity and rebuilding costs. I don't show my cars, I drive them. On CCCA, VMCCA, and other tours there are almost always a proportionately great percantage 1941 Cadillacs driving around. You are lucky to see one or maybe two Continentals. I've also had prewar Continental owners tell me that the front suspension leaves a bit to be desired but I don't know that firsthand. My Cadillac is an automatic so my wife has no difficulty driving it and she actually likes the way it handles, pretty much like a heavy chunk of modern driving iron. And parts availablity is almost like that of a modern car, parts are everywhere and there's good club support. So if you want to actually drive the car a lot, then I recommend the Cadillac. If you are going to mainly show the car with limited road use, I would get a Continental because it's so beautiful. But that's just me, it's like buying art, get what you like best and you will never regret your purchase. Also, and I keep preaching this, I always recommend buying the most complete and best restored car you can afford because, unless you are doing nearly ALL the restoration work yourself, you can never come out financially if you need to sell. You are almost always better off overpaying for a really good original or restored car that you are not going to pay someone to work on, than underpaying for a car that needs a lot of work.

Good luck hunting,

Bill

Edited May 1, 2012 by Bill Miller
typos (see edit history)

[Guest straight shooter]

Thanks for everyones comments, they have all been extremely helpful and have given me a really good idea on what to expect. I am starting to steer away from the 40-41 Lincolns even though I love their classic styling. They were on the top of my list but I am now thinking that it might not be the car for me. I want something that will be relatively reliable and a capable driver. The Lincoln seems to be more suitable as a show car or as a museum piece. I am now looking into the Buicks and Packards because of some of your comments. If there are any other cars that I should consider please let me know.

[Matt Harwood]

Excellent points.

I'd like to add, though, that I was always leery of the Hydramatics. I drove one a couple of years ago (1947 fastback), and I was very impressed. It was not a slouch, and it even changed my mind about wanting one. I really enjoyed driving it.

I agree 100%, West. I expected the automatic to really sap the engine's power and make it feel sluggish, but in fact quite the opposite is true. The '41 Cadillac convertible we have for sale has become one of my favorite cars to drive, and the transmission is definitely not a hindrance. Shifts are crisp, and once it's in top gear, it really hustles. The Hydramatics also got a more highway-friendly rear gear, so they're really effortless cruisers at modern highway speeds.

The Cadillac also feels more durable. It's an intangible thing, but we had a '47 Continental that always felt fragile when I drove it. It worked just fine, never overheated or had any of the typical issues, but it didn't feel as solid as the Cadillac somehow. On the road, it almost felt like they were from two different eras.

I always recommend driving everything you might even be a little bit interested in, and then buy the one that makes you smile the widest.

[West Peterson]

And......... your opinion between Buick and Cadillac is......

[Matt Harwood]

I really wish I could offer an experienced opinion in that regard, but to be honest, I only drove my '41 Century about 7 miles before taking it apart. If it feels as good as the Cadillac when it's done, I'll be thrilled, and I hope it will be even better.

We have a '48 Roadmaster convertible sitting next to the '41 Cadillac, and they feel completely different on the road. A big part of that is the Dynaflow in the Buick, which is certainly cool, but makes the Buick feel syrupy, if you know what I mean. The first time I drove the Dynaflow, I feared there was something wrong, since I couldn't feel the shifts, but then I found myself going 70 MPH and the engine wasn't complaining, so I suppose it was working as intended.

Between those two, I think I'd take the Cadillac, but if the Buick had a manual, then all bets are off. Hard to beat the creamy-smooth torque of the Buick's straight-8.