A few weeks ago, I had mentioned in an essay about a crimson-colored ’83 Chrysler New Yorker Fifth Avenue that many luxury (near-luxury, luxury-leaning, whatever) cars of the ’80s featured upright rear windows. It was pointed out in the comments that this was generally not the case among upscale offerings from European automakers, and also that General Motors’ own downmarket A-body midsized cars and N-body compacts also featured rear backlights with bluff-like angles to them. It was a point well made, but as I think back to GM’s original 1975 Cadillac Seville, the first wave of downsized A-body specialty coupes that arrived for ’78, and also the premium E-Body personal luxury trio that were redesigned for ’79, I still stand by my impression that this look was introduced among domestic makes on more expensive vehicles before trickling down to more common types of vehicles.
The c. ‘88 Cadillac Eldorado was spotted downtown in The Loop on Thursday, March 14, 2019.
The redesigned ’92 Cadillac Eldorado was a sharp stylistic departure from what had immediately preceded it. I wasn’t blown away by its beauty, per se, but as with many new fashions at first introduction, I allotted myself some time to get used to and appreciate the Eldorado’s new style, which did ultimately happen. The newer car was bigger in almost every dimension, riding the same 108″ wheelbase, which helped its overall proportions and made it look more substantial as would better befit a Cadillac:
| 1991 | 1992 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Length | 191.4" | 202.2" | ||
| Width (Without Mirrors) | 72.4" | 74.8" | ||
| Height | 53.2" | 54.0" | ||
| Base Curb Weight | 3,470 lbs. | 3,604 lbs. |
The related Seville, also redone for ’92, was really the looker of the two, but both cars represented stylistic leaps forward, and each jettisoned the bolt-upright rear window of their immediately preceding generations. Even if you weren’t a fan of the new Eldorado’s thick, triangle-shaped C-pillars, if you squint (really hard), it’s not that difficult to see a little bit of the deftly styled ’67 Eldorado’s rear roof styling in the ’92, albeit with much larger rear quarter windows. The effect isn’t quite the same as on the older car, owing much to vastly different proportions, but if someone told me one of the chief stylists of the ’92 had drawn inspiration from the ’67, I’d believe it.
The c. 1984 Lincoln Continental Mark VII was spotted in Bethesda, MD on Thursday, 11/22/2012.
The ’84 Lincoln Continental Mark VII was the domestic personal luxury coupe of the ’80s that first did away with a “formal” rear window, featuring a modern, daring fastback profile a la the ’83 Ford Thunderbird to which it was related. Its success and public acceptance, with an average of 24,000 cars sold over its nine-year run, may have given GM stylists permission to experiment a bit more with what a modern PLC was supposed to look like. My original assumption was that the Mark VII might have gotten a sales boost with the arrival of the smallest Eldorado for ’86, but the Cadillac actually outsold the Lincoln that year by about 14% and 2,800 units (22,800 vs. 20,000). Even when Eldorado sales fell further the next year to 17,800 units, this was still a slightly stronger number than the Mark VII’s 15,300 tally. By ’94, however, the year of our featured car, the newer Mark VIII would outsell the Eldorado by over 3,000 units.
When the redesigned ’92 Eldorado arrived, its powertrain was a carryover from the previous package: a 200-horsepower, 4.9 liter V8. However, for ’94, a 4.6 liter Northstar engine with 270 horsepower, previously optional for ’93, was made standard. Just under 25,000 ’94 Eldorados found buyers, between the base model that originally listed for $37,290 (~74,500 in 2022) and the Touring Coupe that started at $40,590 (~$81,100). A new, 2022 Escalade starts at around $77,800.
It will always make me smile to see a nicely kept, older luxury car from my early adulthood that I remember from its introduction. Once possessing a progressive, new shape, this silver Eldorado now seems almost as traditional as the row of old, wood frame houses behind it. Ten years ago, I might not have given it a second look, but on the Saturday afternoon of the first weekend of autumn, I was compelled to give this Cadillac just a little bit of the extra attention it deserved, even if only in passing.
Rogers Park, Chicago, Illinois.
Saturday, September 24, 2022.
These and the Sevilles had a really handsome dashboard with real zebrano wood! but marred by the ugly airbag steering wheel of the time.
Like the ’94 Deville, the low, sloping front made the back look too big from some angles, though it was still a huge improvement. They fixed that somewhat in the ’97 Deville, but sales didn’t justify it for the Eldorado. I can’t believe the melted, cheesy Mark VIII outsold it.
They should have used the Seville’s wheelbase to move the A pillar further from the wheels and lengthen the hood a la ’69 Grand Prix. But that would have required re-engineering the unibody.
That “really handsome dashboard” cribbed from the 1980s Mercedes 190E by the way, although Cadillac added more wood.
Wow!
Exactly. Others also thought the W201/190-series dash was a fine idea.
And that “really handsome dashboard” in the MB is uncannily similar to the A40 series Toyota Carina of 1977; the Benz may have a more sweeping curve to the dash top, but other than that? The ergonomic differences in control and vent placement are minute, if at all.
That’s a nice dash, but it’s not “uncannily similar”. More like sort-of, somewhat similar. The key design element of the MB dash was that sweeping top pad as well as the continuous flow down into the center stack. Both are missing on the Carina dash.
In fact, I take it back; I would never have considered these as very similar designs at all. Three gauges in front of the driver and vents on either side are not exactly unique.
The Carina dash is attractive if somewhat generic, but all I can see is that complicated audio system that imitated the look and feel of period home component stereos. This was a fad that lasted through about 1986 and a distinctly Japanese thing by and large (the only exception being a few GM models that had tape players that loaded like a home cassette deck, with the cassette held vertically so you could see the tape reels spinning). Most of these didn’t sound as good as the whiz-bang appearance promised no matter how you twiddled the controls.
The top curve is similar, but the rest is superior on the Cadillac, plus the center stack doesn’t impinge on kneeroom as much, thanks to FWD.
Selling these starting in 1988, I was there for the transition from the old model (1986-1991) into the all new 1992. Both the Eldo and Seville were amazing for us, although I actually liked the 86-91 style a lot. The best used Eldo/Seville to buy today is a 1993 but with the 4.9L instead of the Northstar. In 1992, they all had the 4.9, but in 1993 they had the 4.9 in the base cars and the TC/STS had the NS. Although I like the NS for it’s power and refined feel/sound, it does like to leak oil and will need a head gasket without a question. But even with that engine, I’d still put my money on one and it’s still way cheaper than most any luxury import models. The zebrano wood was amazing too.
Dan, thanks for the firsthand account of being in the Cadillac showroom when these were first introduced. That’s perspective that so few of us have – being able to gauge the reactions of potential buyers. I imagine that’s a large part of what it takes to be in sales of big ticket items.
I remember being in high school when the Northstar was introduced, and being impressed with its numbers.
I can see the ’67 Eldorado’s influence on this design to a certain extent, although I wish there’d been more leeway for the stylists to have emulated it a bit more, such as incorporating a more prominent prow into the front and tail ends, or adding some creases in the sheet metal to at least hint at the hip line of the original, etc. I suppose the hard points couldn’t have been monkeyed with very much, and of course pedestrian safety and aerodynamics probably forced some of the blandness of the overall shape. The near vertical rear roofline was beyond passe’ by this time, but it certainly did start out as a high-end design feature, with the original Seville and the ’79 E Bodies, all of which wore it well and projected an upscale image. But yeah, when it migrated over to the $8000 entry level ’82 Celebrity the jig was up. Obviously space efficiency played a big part in that roofline’s ubiquitousness, but it got old quick, and after debuting on well trimmed upscale models it just looked like a cheap affectation on the lower tier cars. By the time the ’86 Eldorado came along that roofline was probably more of a detriment than a “feature”, and actually I wonder of the ’86 might have benefitted from a more “swoopy” shape in spite of its dinky size, cheap materials and initially crappy engines.
While I can sort of see the rear quarter window shape as derived from the ’67 original, I actually feel that the “squareness” of it just serves to accentuate the overall brick-like look of the whole car. I feel like that window begs for a different shape, but I can’t quite put my finger on what that shape should be.
My feeling exactly, MTN. That quarter window always reminds me of a square peg in a round hole. It doesn’t fit the shape, but what would? Maybe… but no.
It leaves me feeling there’s something inscrutable about the design, like much modern art. I might not “get it”, but does that necessarily make it wrong? The problem with applying this sort of thing to a commercial product is, will enough buyers “get it”? So long as it sold more than its predecessor; that shouldn’t have been too hard…
You nailed it with your analysis of the rear side window shape feeling “off” in some way. It’s like that nagging thought one has that one just can’t put one’s finger on.
I don’t think there’d be any way to give this a more ’67 Eldo-like shape as long as the hood had to (necessarily) slope for the sake of aerodynamics. I wonder if there might have been some creative workarounds to give this one more of the flavor of the original, and best IMO, iteration of the Eldorado PLC.
I agree with you on the rear quarter window. I think the issue is the profile view roof-to-window ratio. There is not enough roof behind the rear edge of the window, making the C-pillar look “pinched” at the top. My guess is it was a combined result of visibility concerns regarding rear seat occupants and set platform dimension requirements. I edited the first image of the article a bit to see how the Eldo would look with a narrower rear quarter window. I think it works. Credit to the photographer for the source image.
Cadillac had a lot riding on the redesigned ’92 Eldorado and Seville. I attended the Detroit Show for their debut. I remember Cadillac bragging that the only thing the two cars shared in common was the windshield. I am partial to large coupes and my expectations were high. My first impression was how the stunning Seville made the Eldorado look homely and thought they really should have just made the Eldorado a two-door version of the Seville. Anyway, I am unaware of official sales figures, but I know you couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting a Seville and only occasionally saw an Eldorado in the following years. Too bad. I still enjoy seeing them today.
“Stunning” is a good word to describe the concurrent Seville’s visual impact on me when I first saw it. It truly looked world-class to me, and also unmistakably from the U.S. – a winning combination, stylewise.
Nicely done article. Thanks for the side-by-side pictures of the 1986-91 model with the 1992-96 version for comparison. I greatly prefer the sloping fastback to the sheer look, which was really getting tired by the early Nineties.
What really captured my attention was the profile view of the Mark VII versus the Eldo. The Lincoln was well-proportioned and, I think, was an excellent representation of a personal luxury car for its times. In contrast, the Eldo seems a bit forced and its wheelbase too short relative to the overall length of the car. The huge front overhang, probably necessitated by FWD, detracts from the overall shape. The doors also appear too long, though ingress/egress to the rear seat was probably easier. This may be a case where the whole PLC concept had lasted longer than GM’s ability to provide an appropriate platform for this sort of vehicle.
Thanks, William. Your comment had me flipping back to the composite image of the Lincoln and Cadillac, and the more I look at it, the more I’m convinced that the proportions are basically the same – except for that (as you alluded to) the Eldorado lacks what looks like a couple of inches from the trailing edge of the wheel well to the door cut-out.
I always thought introducing the near-vertical “formal” roofline on the ’75 Seville was a brilliant move by GM, as it established that look on GM’s most expensive car (limos excepted) so that when it was used for the downsized DeVille in 1977, the new look (that was quite a change from the swoopier ’76 hardtop with opera window look) was immediately accepted and further associated with luxury cars, including the other C body sedans from Buick and Olds. The ’78 downsized A-special personal luxury coupes (Cutlass Supreme, etc.) continued this as did the ’79 E bodies (including the Eldorado). I think it was in 1980 when the formal roofline jumped the shark, when it was used on the puny (and unreliable) X body Omega, Skylark, and (as a coupe only) Phoenix, as well as the Cutlass and Century sedans that now looked like near-clones of the first-gen Seville, not to mention the entire line of B- and C-body full-sizers including the coupes. The next year the square roof showed up on Chrysler’s K cars, while GM added it to nearly everything they made by 1986. The shape was always good for space efficiency, rear door ingress/egress, trunk lid opening size, and keeping the rear window clean, but any association with luxury was long gone.
I never made the connection of the ’92 Eldo’s roofline reprising the ’67’s, although I always saw the ’67 in the popular ’79-85 Eldorado (with similar window shapes but a squared-off roofline needed for rear seat space in the smaller size), as these had bladed fenders front and rear, the same pushbutton/grab bar door handles, similar front and rear treatments, and just an instantly recognizable Cadillac shape that the ’92 just lacked.
One thing I just remembered about the “sheer look” rear window and space utilization and rear headroom is that the rear package tray / shelf always seemed really tiny! In my mind, this was as compared with the relatively giant package tray behind the rear seat of my parents’ ’77 Plymouth Volare coupe, which had a very sloped rear window.
I considered the small shelf to be an advantage, as using it as a “package tray” is unsafe – anything stored there becomes a projectile during a frontal collision.
An excellent point.
I remember liking these a lot when they came out, but I don’t think they look as good now as I once did. Dark colors helped this shape a lot, IMHO. I don’t think the silver is very flattering – which is odd because lots of cars look pretty good in silver.
I absolutely agree with you that darker colors are better on these. There’s a same-generation Eldorado that “lives” maybe a block or two from me that is absolutely stunning in black, with fancy white (gold?) sidewalk tires, factory chrome wheels, and factory everything-else. It’s surprising I haven’t written that one up yet, but it’s always on the move.
Never paid attention enough to note that “long expanse” of roof behind the rear seat windows.
looks out of proportion to the rest of the car from this side angle.
That Lincoln coupe, photo’d, about half way through the read; those were a nice riding car. I understand they were a bit soft, meandering, to drive though.
A breath of fresh air after the stale formal ‘sheer look’ that seemed to hang on at GM forever. No stylistic quirks apart from the rear side window shape – GM goes mainstream.
Exactly. And it was because the “sheer look” was GM’s modus operandi for so long that this shape looked so daring at its introduction. (For an Eldorado.)
I thought well of that generation of Eldorado/Seville cars. Not a domestic car fan, not a GM fan, not a Cadillac fan, I thought they were well styled, they claimed to handle well and a ~300HP Northstar engine! Of course as it turned out, they didn’t handle well, and the Northstar was less than a paragon of reliability, but at worst it seemed like a good effort.
I will also give GM a B+ for effort – absolutely. Especially given what seemed to be the norm there in the decade before.
Being that I have a 98 Eldorado I’m partial to this car though I’m not particularly fond of the 92-95 version as that model looks a little homely compared to the refreshed model. The Mark VIII LSC looks alot better.
I did like the refresh. I can find things to like about both iterations.
I forgot all about this gem. I might need to buy one
A 1994 Eldorado with the MK VII’s rear side windows would have been a gorgeous car.
Most problems with overly vertical rear windows only became obvious with GM’s conversion to front wheel drive. After that, the proportions were always awkward and the experience of sitting in the rear seats was always positively unpleasant for anyone tall enough to have their head extend above the seat back.
Two cars worth considering are the aero-Thunderbird and its platform-twin Cougar. One had the pleasing proportions of a graceful roof and other was blighted with a notch-back. Which of those sold better?
I’d assume that the Thunderbird outsold the Cougar in most years, but taking ’94 (toward the end of that generation’s run, and the same year as our Eldorado), there were ~126,000 Thunderbird’s sold against 76,000 Cougars.
I don’t think that really proves my point. Ford had a much larger footprint than Mercury by the ’90s, so I assume their versions of cars usually sold in larger numbers.
What was the point? The 89 Cougars sold 97,246 to the Tbird’s 122,909, a similar ratio to the Fox based predecessors so (initial) reception is pretty split especially if you are factoring in the dealer network favoring Ford branded sales. Sales did drop through the 90s with a bump in 93-94(same with the Tbird to greater degree) so if your point was that sales were worse because of the notchback these numbers should support your argument.
I’ll argue though that notchback and other differentiated bits of the Cougar had their appeal to a good portion of the market that was neither fond of GM’s overshrunken N bodies and 86 E bodies OR the “melted bar of soap” aero Thunderbird. The Cougar largely retained the proportions of cars like the 79-85 Riviera/Toronado/Eldorado.
My point was that the 1983-1986 Thunderbirds were very pleasingly styled with good proportions which were ruined by the vertical back window of the Cougar. Based on sales, I would say it isn’t a view shared by a meaningful majority of the actual buyers. Sadly, the attractiveness of the Thunderbird was destroyed in 1987, when Ford fell back on their expanding-overhang addiction.
I was just looking at some photographs of the T-birds and Cougars. The 1983-1988 Cougars look even worse than I remembered. The 1989 Cougar had a much less jarring roofline. I wonder how many of those 6th generation Cougars were rental cars. Certainly, most of the ones seen in coastal states.
I like the lines of these Eldos but would never buy one due to the Northstar engine issues. Later Northstars allegedly had the issues resolved, but the damage was done, and GM’s hubris