(first posted 11/8/2011) Endings are hard. And boy, does this car ever embody a lot of endings. The problem with endings is that almost inevitably, they’re forced. Quitting while at the top may sound noble, but who really pulls that off, at least in modern history? It’s a concept even more archaic than the mega-sized convertible. But inevitably it came, one year after this Eldorado was built, and America’s never been quite the same since.
America’s Exceptional Era began after the end of WW2, and 1972 was its last full year. The OPEC-induced energy crisis of 1973 was the catalyst that ended it, although that probably gives it too much credit; it was inevitable anyway. Why else would it be called “exceptional”? So what do we call the era that began then: the New-Normal Era?
Without rehashing the obvious, the Exceptional Era earned its name because Americans’ incomes and purchasing power were growing exceptionally fast, as were its cars. From 3000 lb cars with 90 hp to 5000 lb cars with 500 cubic inches. That was hardly a sustainable trend line, eh?
But the Exceptional Era went out with a mighty big bang: GM’s 1971 cars were over the top, swelling their hips in a final orgy of excess. And although the Eldorado wasn’t quite as long as the “regular” Caddies, for a personal luxury car it was huge. Sitting on a 126″ wheelbase, they stretched from sea to shining sea.
The 1971 Eldorado, as the standard bearer for the whole ’71 GM line, was living proof that the end was nigh. There was no genuine original inspiration that drove their design. Most of all the Eldorado, which had a decidedly retro quality to it, invoking Cadillac styling cues twenty years earlier.
The bulging hips with that vertical transition trim, the horizontal line emanating from the front wheel, the humped rear deck lid, etc.. Inspiration? To do what exactly? How to make the world’s biggest cars? Decadence usually sets in just before the end.
But before this veers off towards a Deadly Sin, let’s look for the positives. And I found some, thanks to two fortuitous qualities. This is a 1972, the last year before whatever originality it had was badly marred by the five mph cow catcher bumpers that appeared the following year. That, combined with it being a convertible.
The Eldorado coupes of this vintage have just never been able to step out of the hole of their own making for me. Here it is. And I’m surprised it didn’t earn a Deadly Sin; must have been a sunny day.
And I’ve harbored a similar grudge against the convertible, by association and because most of them seem to be the later ones with the dreadful bumpers. And all that to-do when the last ones were made in 1976. Good riddance! I was twenty three, and the guys wailing and clamoring over them wore white belts and matching shoes. The last big American convertible! Buyers bid up the prices to ridiculous levels, only to see their investments wiped out, especially when Cadillac started offering convertibles again a few years later.
So here I am, confronted with a car that’s been the object of my derision for so long, and what happens? I’m sucked in. Well, sort of, anyway. And in more than the “cool old Cadillac, man” way, a mindset that I can fully appreciate and understand. And one that comes easy for those born since this car was built.
My prejudice is so informed by the coupe and the stylistic decline of this body, that I realize I’m really looking at a pre-’73 convertible for the first time ever. And it’s not as bad as I remember it to be. The old Mitchell magic still has a bit of power left. Especially at the front and rear ends, which were so violated after 1972.
From the right angles, this car is still a lot more crisp and edgy than the bloated bulge-mobiles of my mind. Hardly like the rather brilliant knife-edged 1967, but not without enough interest to keep me walking around and looking longer than I’d have expected. But then it was a rather exceptionally hot day; one whose effect could well work either way.
The Eldo’s interior obviously shows effects of the twin evils of safety regs and bean counting. But on the other hand, like the rest of this ’72, it’s fairly clean and toned down compared to bordello Biarritz’ to come. The color combo is surprisingly less offensive that I might expect. Try getting a green and white interior nowadays!
Of course, there are some challenging details, like these two charming fillips. Let’s just say interior decor of this period will not go down in history favorably. Modernism is dead; now what do we do? It was a painful era; shag carpeting, heavy dark furniture, harvest gold appliances, and doohickeys like these everywhere.
But there was more to the Eldorado than fillips, at least under the hood. Cadillac’s all-new V8 debuted in 1968 with 472 cubic inches (7.6 L). If I remember correctly (and I may not) they left enough growth potential to eventually take it to 600 cubes. Within a few years after the 500 CID (8.2 L) version arrived in 1970, it would start shrinking, going down to 425 cubes (1978), and then quickly all the way to 368 cubic inches in 1980. The irony of it; all that massive bore spacing to be left to wasted solid iron. Pride goes before the fall (in displacement).
I’m almost tempted to skip the usual litany about the 500 cubic incher’s meager horsepower output. Yes, it was 235 (net) hp; within a couple of years it dropped further, to 190. The same as a 2.4 L four cylinder Honda Accord musters today. End of subject. The 500 twisted plenty of torque to give an adequate facsimile of performance to its target demographic. Through the front wheels, too, no less; if anyone cared. Nobody did. Made for a killer RV drive train.
So I’ve confessed my Deadly Sin, having been sucked in to the Eldorado convertible’s magic, at least a little. Who can resist? The really big car may have crumbled under the weight of its own excess, but what a way to go (just not too quickly please; we haven’t touched on its wallowy handling and so-so brakes). But there was plenty of compensation: the 1972 Fleetwood Eldorado Convertible cost $7546 new, which equals $40,000 in today’s money. It really was The Exceptional Era. And what an ending.
So that’s what those fillips come from. It’s an interior piece! Sneaky. I thought they belong in a C-pillar somewhere. Did anyone get this one right?
It looks like I was the first one to have this one … clocked …
I believe I was the first to get it.
I said 1972 Cadillac. Possibly an Eldorado or Fleeteood Sixty Special Brougham a full day before you. I should have known It was an Eldo Convertible for sure since Paul had unfetterd access to the interior and the full size 72’s had already been covered. It’s all good, it seems we have similar taste in cars and both have a Masters Degree in Brougham Studies from CCU – Eugene. My thesis was about woodgrain and padded vinyl tops. What was yours in?
I majored in Pillow Top Seating and silver faced gauges, with a minor in Opera Lamps.
Our fraternity was BRO-Sacred order of the Landau.
Motto: Broughamliness is next to Godliness.
So “bro” comes from “Brougham”. Now I get it.
“Yo brough!”
I once momentarily had an ambition to be a Professor of Half-Vinyl Roofs and Roofing Materials.
I did an entire dissertation on Medici velour and a term paper on the differences between Valino and Tuxedo grain vinyl tops.
I favor Cavalry Twill Vinyl myself, as used on Lincoln Continentals of the early 1970s.
Well, I was wrong, I don’t hate it.
American excellence at the top began June 6, 1944 (to me), definitely by August 6th & 8th, 1945, and ended in September, 1972 with the introduction of the GM Colonnades and the beginning of the disappearance of the pillarless hardtop in mid- and larger cars.
Syke accuses me of my constant harping on this as a schtick of some sort, but it’s not – back then, this revelation hit me like a ton of bricks and spelled the death of the “useful” mid- to large sized coupe. I would and will never buy one again until the fixed windows go away, which means I buy either a convertible or a sedan. On small cars, I don’t have an issue – well, not much, anyway, but would at least like to see flip-out glass. It comes down to sensible, practical design and utility and passenger-friendliness, simple as that, and I make no apologies for my stand on this.
The 1973 models along with my lousy 1976 3/4 ton Chevy truck I owned two years to the day finally drove me away from GM from 1977 until 2004.
Yes, 1972 was the end of so many things that baby boomers took for granted. It pretty much coincided with the winding down of the Vietnam war. I saw the air force changing, it was not the same service I joined in 1969 and by early 1973, it was the perfect time to get out when my four years were up in September, 1973.
The Caddy in question? Not for me, too big and too pretentious. Besides, I’m an Impala guy as far as large cars go. Still, a nice example. BTW, I don’t see the signature GM “mark of excellence” cracked dash, unless it doesn’t show on the photos.
Regarding the fixed rear windows, I’m sure that costs were a factor, but the thinking was also that buyers should spring for air conditioning. As someone who grew up in the 1970s, I remember that having an air-conditioned car was still a big deal and a sign of status.
We didn’t want to drive around with the windows down. We wanted to pull up to the school or local shopping mart and have everyone see us get out of an air-conditioned car.
Maybe we didn’t want to drive with the windows open or the top down in the 70’s because the air was so filthy most places. And the freeways still ran at a buffeting 60+.
Now the air’s a lot nicer, but the freeways are a lot slower. So roll down the windows and put down the top!
I’m reminded of one of Educator Dan’s comments some time ago, either here or over at TTAC about wanting to see the return of the “Two-Door Sedan”.
It’s not especially about the disappearance of the pillarless hardtops I harp on, but the fixed windows. Yes, I too want to see the return of the “useful” two-door sedan. “useful” means the ability to open the rear windows. How difficult is that?
I will admit that driving on the highway is no picnic in heavy traffic with the windows down, but I do it regularly and enjoy it – I just don’t have the radio on or (try) to listen to music, just enjoying the drive.
I got a 72 for sell, 500 ci anybody looking.
“….too big and too pretentious.” I would decode this as Cadilla marketing success. Wasn’t Cadillac, throughout its history, designed be the car used to announce “I have arrived”? A V-16 in the 1930s couldn’t possibly say anything else….nor could 500 cubes in 1970.
–I share your disdain of GM and its products. I was so horrified by a 1997 Astro van (and the dealer experience) that I vowed that I would NEVER again subject myself to such an awful ownership experience.
“….too big and too pretentious”.
I would interpret this as Cadillac’s marketing success. Wasn’t Cadillac, throughout its history, marketed as the car to announce “I have arrived–look at me!”? A V-16 in the 1930s and acres of chrome and fins in the 1950s couldn’t possibly say anything else….nor could 500 cubes in 1970.
–I share your disdain of GM and its products. I was so horrified by a leased 1997 Astro van (and the dealer experience) that I vowed that I would NEVER again subject myself to such an awful ownership experience.
When I was 10, our neighbor directly across the street bought exactly this same color Eldorado coupe for his then wife. To this day these remind me of sickly, chain smoking, way too thin 60 yr old women.
The same demographic drives a Camry Solara convertible today. I dont remember that green color. All the Eldos I remember from back then were white whales.
A few well-chosen parts would wake up that 500 and make it walk while still keeping it it whisper quiet. It cries out for an underhood turbocharger. http://www.yourhotcar.com/parts/cadillac-fleetwood-performance-parts-turbo-chargers/c114f115.html There’s no worrying about turbo lag when you have over 400 foot pounds of torque waiting. Weren’t there turbo caddys later sold from the dealer?
Are you sure the driver doesn’t constantly bitch about the Dukes to his sheriff-crony?
Only thing this cadillac needs engine-wise is a rebuild to take it back to 10:1 compression to take it back to the 400 gross hp and 500 torques. Also new valve springs to eliminate valve float above 4200rpm. And then it is up to the cam and heads to decide whether it produces up to 600hp/700tq net or manages 20mpg on a highway trip
In convertible mode, I like this Eldo, however my kudos will remain with the 48 to 53 models and especially the convertibles of that era. I am also particularly fond of the 1961 models.
Paul, you make a good case for this beautiful Caddy convertible being the poster child for the end of a fantastic era.
Why else would it be called “exceptional”? So what do we call the era that began then: the New-Normal Era?
Hasn’t it already been given the name “Malaise era” (with credit to Murilee Martin)?
Long before I started reading websites, I had already come to the conclusion that the world “ended” around 1972. Not just in automotive performance and styling terms either: There seemed to be a dearth of technological advancement; the biggest thing I can think of is the space shuttle, which was a decade in development due to NASA budget cutbacks and first flew in (I think) 1981. In my opinion, popular entertainment (music, movies, etc) was so-so at best for much of that time as well. Perhaps it was the release of Star Wars in 1977 that finally gave people a new hope for the future.
“Long before I started reading websites, I had already come to the conclusion that the world “ended” around 1972”
In many ways it kind of did, didn’t it?
I always wonder why the generations up to and including mine all had some unique culture — music, clothes, etc. But since the ’80s everything is just recycled endlessly, with nothing new happening.
Like the music today either sounds like Grand Master Flash from the late ’70s or psychedelic rock or Stevie Wonder on a disco beat. Our parents hated our music because it was so different from theirs; we hate kids’ music now because it’s a soulless regurgitation of the music of our youth… Or something.
There’s a lot of truth in your comment. Here’s an interesting take on youth culture being stuck: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/opinion/sunday/the-entrepreneurial-generation.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=portland%20hipsters&st=cse
Very good article, thanks for the link.
I feel sad for kids today. In many ways they didn’t get the kind of opportunities or variety of choices many of us were able to access. Of course, there’s always a tradeoff. I feel sorry for my dog because he doesn’t see so well, he probably feels sorry for me I can’t smell a rabbit at 100 yards. 🙂 It’s not necessarily worse or better, just different.
But I do get the nagging feeling sometimes the “problem with kids” today is we’ve screwed up our economy so badly they simply cannot afford to rebel. Certainly when I left home at 16 without any familial support it was a big deal, but $100 studio apartments and minimum wage made it possible. Today such a thing is nearly unthinkable, an absolute rock-bottom last resort. No wonder the modern version of “teen rebellion” is “I’ll make my own money and you can screw off”.
Then again on the other hand, youth without a prominent rebellion was perfectly normal before the industrial revolution. The youth rebellions of the ’20s through the ’70s* may have been strictly a symptom of the Exceptional Era.
*Debatable perhaps, but I think it’s generous to consider “grunge” a unique idiom. It’s really just depressed kids trying to play prog punk. To me it resembles cowering more than rebelling — the most prominent example’s final message to the world boiled down to “no-one will help me with my [heroin-related] stomach problem and I’m not ready to get clean so I will now blow my head off”.
Well I moved to Portland, OR because the cost of living is cheaper than Central New York and if I play my cards right I can paint buildings or load/unload tractor trailers for $12-18 an hour. Though I have had some financial help from my folks, but I have pondered buying an RV to live in to save on rent and commuting costs. I am nearly 25 by the way and going to school to get a good paying job so I do not get stuck in constant poverty or lower middle class like so many of the people who live where I moved from.
I agree that much modern music sucks and the stuff that does not suck sounds old school. I also rather listen to stuff like Deep Purple, Grateful Dead, Pink Floyd, and Blue Grass than pop.
I am disappointed that nobody commented on my Star Wars pun. 🙁
It’s because people who saw Star Wars in 1977 (and 1978; many theaters ran it for a solid year) did not see “A New Hope” at the start of the movie in big capital letters. That wasn’t added until the 1981 (i.e., post-Empire Strikes Back) re-release and home video versions. In its original run the movie was just plain Star Wars.
Great. That makes me too old. Thanks, guys!
Agree that 72 was the end of the golden age for cars, but there was still to come some some very good what we now call ‘Classic Rock” in that time frame. Disco era was the start of the downfall in music, and early 80’s MTV era music was, for the most part , pretty weak. Late 80’s early 90’s things got better for a while. (musically). After that the cars look the same, the music sounds the same. Although at least cars got better quality wise.
There was also the withdrawal from Vietnam, which bookended the triumph of WWII – and reinforced the ambiguity of the Korean “Conflict”. Plus the first stirrings of inflation, and a little something called “Watergate”.
I was just a kid – 10 in 1975, but I remember the sense of scarcity and limits, against which you had cars like this.
And there was a strong sense of looking back – specifically to the Revolutionary era, thanks to the upcoming Bicentennial, but a more general sense of nostalgia for lost simplicity and/or glamour. You had movies like The Sting, and Robert Redford’s The Great Gatsby, and lot’s of Gay 90s inspired decor – wicker, ceiling fans, ice-cream parlor chairs.
Mitchell seemed to ride that heavily with the ’71s, but there were indications already with the Mark III, details on the ’69-’70 Cadillacs, and perhaps the UR-neoclassical source, Exner’s revival cars in the early to mid 60s. Here’s a link to info about those cars: http://www.madle.org/evival.htm
“I’m sucked in. Well, sort of, anyway. And in more than the ‘cool old Cadillac, man’ way, a mind set that I can fully appreciate and understand. And one that comes easy for those born since this car was built.”
I resemble that remark. 🙂 But 70s Caddies don’t do much for me, mostly because of the design-recycling you describe. Another four decades of eggcrate grilles/exaggerated hoods/sorta-tailfins means that nothing here looks too special…
…Or maybe I’m just a sore loser, because people ALWAYS ask if my Imp is a Cadillac!
I sometimes get “Hey, nice Lincoln!”
I used to get that too! I had a 77 New Yorker Brougham, which was really a 75 Imperial without the rear disc brakes.
Ha! Reminds me of the same-color light metallic green with white vinyl top ’77 Gran Fury I had for a while…I’d take that to a Chrysler club meeting and guys would go “Aack! Here comes that Buick again!”
Like you, Paul, I have come to a grudging respect for at least the looks of this car. Back when these were new, I was a Lincoln partisan. It was “us” vs. “them”, and these Eldos were definitely “them”.
But in later years, I see that these cars (in their original design) are sort of the end of the line for the classic GM longer-lower-wider school of design. Beyond 1972, they sort of became Exner-Lite by getting wierd and tacky. These are at least clean designs that look good on cars of gargantuan proportions.
As I have stated before, these are best viewed as a pedestrian. To get into one and ride around in it will remove any good feelings that you may have over these. The powertrain is first-rate, but the body structure and the trim quality is just awful. Unfortunately, this was becoming epidemic in the 70s.
The guys at Lincoln caught the beginning of the next wave about this time, and the Marks always outsold the Eldos. The Marks also seemed to be more solid and made with better stuff inside, or at least they seemed that way when new. Is my memory playing tricks on me? One of the factoids buried deeply in my brain is that a new Mark IV stickered at $8800 in 1972, and was the most expensive American car you could buy that year. Was it really that much more than an Eldo? But this is a great find that dredges up all kinds of mixed emotions.
I would agree that 1970s Lincolns look and feel more substantial than comparable Cadillacs. Just as GM did sheetmetal sculpturing, exaggerated grilles and chrome decoration better than anyone else in the 1950s, Ford did the “Brougham” look better than anyone else in the 1970s.
I disagree, every where I look inside a Lincoln from the 70’s I see cheap Ford hardware, the same 2 spoke steering wheel that was in everything from a Torino to an F-series, the same cheap a/c control, same Philco-esque radio, same little tiny fingernail sized power window and lock switches that you would find on an LTD, I have driven and experienced several of both, and I take the Cadillac with looking twice.
Even if the hardware on a 1970s Cadillac is unique to the marque (and I don’t believe that all of it is, aside from the steering wheel), it is still not superior to what one finds in a contemporary Lincoln (or, apparently, a contemporary Ford). And that doesn’t get into the more solid-feeling body of the Lincolns.
A friend has a mint-condition Diamond Jubilee Lincoln Mark V, and I would take it over a contemporary Eldorado any day. Same with a Continental coupe or sedan over a DeVille.
Ford’s Philco radios of the 1970s were FAR superior to what you got from GM. The base-unit AM radio in my aunt’s 1977 Pinto offered better reception than the AM-FM stereo unit in my parent’s 1976 Oldsmobile Delta 88. And my parents’ car had the optional power antenna, not the antenna embedded in the windshield that was the standard set-up for most GM cars during these years. The reception was still awful. Cars with the antenna mounted in the windshield were even worse.
Thats why they’re opinions……having had a 77 New Yorker Brougham too, I would put it even above Lincolns of that era, Chrysler had quality issues at the time , but their big cars were still pretty damn good, and it didn’t have a Valiant steering wheel either.
Cars had superior radios when long distance AM reception far from cities was important, and cars put out lots of ignition noise.
Once most people listened to FM on suburban commutes, the radios got cheaper. The antennas got a lot shorter, which is OK for FM, where a 1/4 wave is about two feet long. Sucks for AM.
GM in the seventies was at the cutting edge of cutting cost. Ford lagged but eventually caught up.
What I remember about GM radios was the in-the-windshield antenna. HORRIBLE reception. With a weak station, you would hear static with every wipe of the wipers. Any car with a mast antenna would outperform them in 100 ways. What’s funny is that these must have cost a fortune compared to the old-style mast antennas. And heaven help you if you needed to replace the windshield.
I’m sure the windshield antennas were very cheap. Just have the glass line drop a little wire between the laminations. No labor, no damage in transit.
I forgot about the wiper static, you’re right, that takes me back. People were turning away from AM to FM. Crummy AM antennas probably accelerated that.
The length and proliferation of antennae was directly proportional to the reception provided.
All the better if they were over six feet long and in parallel at a 60 degree angle protruding from the rear fenders.
The power antenna on my 75 Buick seem to strech out to something like 7ft, its crazy!
There really was no problem changing the windshields with embedded antenna. I helped my father change them many times. There was a short flexible antenna lead on the windshield that snapped onto a receptacle on the firewall under the hood. Very easy.
Now why anybody thought encasing a radio antenna in glass was a good idea–I don’t know. And if the windshield developed a crack that ran across the antenna, often it would break too, giving you even less reception.
I have to second Geeber. My father was a Lincoln man in the 70s and I spent a fair amount of time in them. The Caddy (and all of the big GM B and C body cars) would shudder and shake over every bump. They just had a floppy structure, while the Lincolns felt tight and solid. Also, slam the doors. The GM cars (particularly as they aged) did not sound nearly as solid as the Lincoln (a big turnaround from the 60s). Finally, the cheap expanded foam vinyl trim. Don’t lean on the door armrest in cold weather with that Caddy, because it will crack. Same with the poofy vinyl on the door panels. And the dash cracks were near universal. None of these were found in the Lincoln (maybe the dash crack, but the car had to be old and abused. Even the garaged Caddys had cracked dashes).
I have to agree with you on the steering wheel and knobs and switches, however. I always wondered why Ford couldn’t spring for another steering wheel.
I’ll give Lincoln a couple of things, I liked the power vent windows and liked that they gave you gauges on the big cars(but not on the Marks after 72, all they had was a speedo, gas guage and giant roman numeral clock-loved those BTW….I always liked to answer its about a half past I-V when some one asked the time)
Though I have seen Lincolns with cracked armrest panels too, my 78 Biarritz which was a garaged 50K car when I got it had one small crack over the spring loaded door pulls on the drivers side, which I can kinda understand considering you were pulling 800lbs with that little handle.
I remember a comment from one of the “King of the Hill” Mark vs. Eldorado tests in Motor Trend, describing that the Mark was the “old money family that had been living graciously for years”, while the Eldo was the “flashy, nouveau riche trying so hard to tell the world it’s wealthy.”
Tom, That describes Lincoln and Cadillac owner’s back then perfectly in my part of the world. I liked both cars but will admit Lincoln had much more of a formal presents about it. Now both of those marques have the same parts and pieces as their lessor cousins. My grandparents had many friends who drove Lincoln’s and Cadillac’s. None of my friends own either car. I am sitting here trying to think of even one who owns a domestic car. Only domestic truck owners come to mind.
My family closed our Chrysler-Plymouth dealership in ’67, but I know from my dad that they sold quite a few Imperials to people who felt Cadillacs were gauche. We also had a very socially active Lincoln-Mercury dealer, and the country club parking lot in the early 70s was filled with Continentals and Marks, with a few Imperials and Cadillacs to liven things up.
Agree on the “King Of The Hill” comment.
“Old money” families in the 1970’s purchased Lincolns or Buick Electras.
“Nouveau riche” and mafia gangsters bought Cadillacs.
I think that definitely may be a “when-new” thing. I remember riding in a realtor’s ’77 Continental when it was just a couple of years old, and he apologized for what was truly a noisy blower motor – set up to run all the time for providing ventilation, but not really up to the job and already worn. I guess he didn’t notice the wallowy handling, nor was there any comment on how he had to pull halfway out into the street at a stop sign before he could see oncoming traffic because of the long nose.
Cars tended to age faster back then, so I doubt that noisy blowers were unique to Lincolns. I remember that my parents’ 1976 Oldsmobile did the same thing after a few years, and had a really annoying rattle under the dashboard (that was eventually corrected with duct tape!).
I don’t think anyone bought these cars for handling as we understand the term. Until Cadillac downsized in 1977, choosing between a Cadillac and a Lincoln for handling was like deciding whether to spend the night with Rosie O’Donnell or Roseanne Barr. Your choices were “worse” or “less worse.”
A friend of mine bought this brand new in bright red. We would kid him about going for a long walk while inspecting his barge. It was a big ‘un.
He bought it because it was going to be the last of the rag tops. Another prognostication of GM’s inability to read the motoring public.
Everyone wants a convertible. It is said you will not want a second one. Sadly I have never gotten the first one.
“Everyone wants a convertible. It is said you will not want a second one.”
Not at all true in my, and my wife’s case. Cases in point:
ME: 1964 Chevy (see avatar) Impala SS.
SHE: 1964 Chevy Impala (same color as mine, before we even met!)
SHE: 1970 brown (ginger poly) Mustang (when we met and after we married)
WE: 1992 red Chrysler LeBaron
WE: 1992 red Jeep YJ
WE: 2007 gray Mazda MX5 (current)
Its not that GM wanted to stop making convertibles, its that sales for convertibles had been on a constant slide since 1965-1966 when they peaked, AMC, Ford and Chrysler had already dropped their own convertibles, GM was still the only company offering customers a choice, geez, people, we need to cool off the TTAC GM hate fest here sometimes.
It’s probably more accurate to say that everyone should own at least one convertible in their lifetime.
My biggest pet-peeve with most (if not all) modern convertibles are the ‘safety nannies’ that prevent the convertible top from being raised/lowered while in motion. I’m not talking about flying down the freeway, but either right after leaving or coming to a stop. While I rather like the new Mustang convertible, Ford has seen fit to require the parking brake to be engaged before the top can be operated. That’s a deal-breaker for me.
The Germans (Porsche and Mercedez, anyway) got it right by allowing the convertible top to be operated if the vehicle is moving at 5mph or less.
Raising or lowering a top while the car is in motion can be costly. My wife found out when she took our ’96 Sebring out not long after we bought it. I’m not sure how it happened, but she didn’t wait to lower the top when she started to move the car forward. I guess it was a windy day. The rear window shattered. Cost $500 to replace.
Good essay. Ford went down the same path with its T-Bird and Mark. Bloated beyond belief. In retrospect it is hard to imagine how the designers could push it that far, but back then this was considered utterly normal.
These big American CCs always make me sad. Paul, you have such a sharp sense of what their passage means. I wonder if it’s because you began your automotive life in such a different environment, and perhaps the glory of the American cars of your youth contrasted with something you personally experienced. For those of us born here, those behemoths merely seemed inevitable, a birth right, instead of a privilege.
Even the maligned Broughams of the Malaise era were possible only because the country was still exceptional: they may not have been great (or even good) vehicles, but our ability to drive 4,000 lbs of steel and suck down gas at 13 mpg was a testament to our wealth and power. Those days aren’t entirely over; we still take pickup trucks to the mall, after all. But the glory is fading: our pickup trucks are powered by little turbo engines, while the Chinese get all of the good Buicks.
I guess I have a different view, but as someone who came of age in the late 1970s, 13 mpg seemed like a testament to a lazy and indifferent automobile industry getting by on past laurels.
By the late 1970s, it was apparent that the themes guiding the domestic industry – ever-larger V-8s, the Dream Whip ride, the longer-lower–wider look and the Brougham epic – had simply run their course.
The Fox-based Mustang and Fairmont and GM’s downsized cars were a welcome step in the right direction, but then GM carried the more practical theme too far with the early 1980s front-wheel-drive A-bodies and their plain styling. It took the Ford aero-look on the Thunderbird, Tempo and Taurus to really get me exciting about domestic cars again.
My parents had a 1976 Oldsmobile Delta 88 Royale Holiday sedan, and while it was reliable, it was also slow (350 V-8), not all that roomy and had a body that shook like a bowl of jelly over modest bumps. Gas mileage was 16 mpg at a steady 55 mph on a good day. It was nice to look at for that time, with its Bill Mitchell styling, but driving it and even riding in it were other matters entirely. The trunk was small and the rear seat, thanks to the severe curvature of the body sides and greenhouse, wasn’t as usable as the one in my 2003 Accord. Front-seat exit and entry were not as easy as the exterior size would indicate.
At some point, just as Harley Earl forgot that cars are cars and not rocket ships or objects upon which to hang chrome, Bill Mitchell forgot that cars are meant to be driven, and not simply to be admired as styling exercises. The 1971 GM full-size models and personal luxury cars were Mitchell’s 1958 models.
I remember still being impressed by these Eldorados as a kid – in small-town Pennsylvania, having one meant you were at least reasonably well-off. But I also remember this nagging feeling that they were bested by their Lincoln counterparts, and both, in turn, simply were not as prestigious as a Mercedes.
Cadillac, and GM, could have regained lost ground during this era, but both preferred to ignore the threat from Germans. Eventually, it would be too late.
I’m not sure you are entirely disagreeing with David, but I am definitely agreeing with you. After the mid-50’s the industry lost sight of or at least practicality, and I’d nominate the mid-60’s as the point where the longer/lower/wider theme and ratio of useful space to exterior dimensions descended into farce. Were there any cars where the useful leg and head room increased after then?
By the time this tank was made US cars had fairly much priced themselves off the market here while these dinosaurs might be ok on a wide smooth freeway or boulevard they are hopeless on bumpy 2 lane blacktop sure our gas was only 48 cents a gallon but when I left school in 73 I only made $1.50 per hour adult wage and something that did 13 mpg wasnt on the cards. While lots of old Caddies are in NZ they were not here new LHD was illegal then and by the time the cost of conversion was factored in the US price had quadrupled so these big tanks made no impact on this end of the world they were neither useful or available. One of the mechanics where my brother worked brought a 74 Coupe de ville back from the US and while it had all the doo-dads fitted it wasnt really impressive to ride in kinda soft and bouncy very wallowy on corners it could hardly maintain the speed limit on the open road in its own lane.
That’s a nice Eldorado, cool find! I especially like the green and white, it’s a nice break from all the metallic beige and silver blandmobiles running around. That said, I wouldn’t want to feed and garage one of these!
One could almost forgive the horrible excess of this car except for the fake glued on carvings on the dashboard. Looks like a Swiss cheap digital coo-coo clock.
paul, i was digging it until you wrote “through the front wheels.” the horror, the horror!
FWD in the Toronado/Eldorado was not as bad as some of the later versions.
The Toro had been FWD since ’66 and the Eldo since ’67. The engine was mounted in the usual North/South orientation, and not East/West, which is an abomination before the Lord for V-8 engines.
Ah, the 70’s
End of Vietham
End of the Apollo program
Watergate
Oil Embargo
Inflation
Polyester
Disco
Jimmy Carter
Fall of the Shah in Iran
2nd Oil Embargo
Geez….how much can you take in one decade?
Oh gawd, the whole 10 years was not “Disco” as some think. Only a few years, and then now called ‘Classic Rock’ was more dominant. The 70’s didnt start in 76.
Disco first popped up around late 1975, really took off with the premier of Saturday Night Fever in late 1977, and was essentially finished by the middle of 1980.
I concur with each of these dates, from direct experience.
The whole decade wasn’t Watergate either, I was just listing some of the things that came to be in the 70’s, relax.
I have often laughed at the photograph of Richard Nixon, during his term as President, ringing a very large bell “for all the insane people in the world”.The Shah of Iran owned a vast car collection and do not forget which country put him into his position of Shah.This green Cadillac is certainly a car which draws your eyes to it,I like it.Many Chinese people believe it is lucky to drive a green coloured car.
Anecdote: Nixon gave Brezhnev a Continental during a state visit. Brezhnev insisted on trying it out while at Camp David, & Nixon wrote he was terrified by Leonid’s driving. Brezhnev afterwards graciously endorsed the car’s handling; maybe it really did out-handle a ZIL. Oh well, all in the name of Détente.
Or maybe Brezhnev was messing with him?
He gave the Brez a Sable Black 1972 Eldorado hardtop when he went over in 1972, then when Brez came over to the US, he presented him with the blue Continental.
At least the Conti & Eldo didn’t cost taxpayers anything; they were [tax deductible?] corporate donations. Perhaps Brezhnev inherited Stalin’s fondness for Yank Tanks. Even the Crown Vic Police Interceptor has been procured by certain Russian law-enforcement agences.
BTW, just where are these Curbside Classics now? Has any Russian enthusiast investigated?
I know that I’ve seen pictures of the Lincoln in a museum in Moscow.
Didn’t Brezhnev also get a Monte Carlo?
Yes, Comrade Brez got one of those, too. Naturally, it was loaded.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2245&dat=19740702&id=aWwzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vzIHAAAAIBAJ&pg=6953,164514
I have to wonder, if the State Dept. asks for such a donation, is this an offer a carmaker can refuse? Or does the free PR make the decision a no-brainer?
BTW, the King of Siam once offered a gift of elephants to the United States. Lincoln’s reply was a classic example of how to say “No thanks” diplomatically.
I never knew about the Monte Carlo, The article is from 1974?….it must have been a Colonnade.
It was definitely a Colonnade Monte Carlo. Somehow Brezhnev had heard that the 1973 Monte Carlo was Motor Trend’s “Car of the Year.” He supposedly said if the Monte Carlo was good enough to be named “Car of the Year,” then that is what he wanted.
The Nixon Administration contacted GM, and a frantic search was conducted to find an appropriately equipped (i.e., loaded) Monte Carlo. If I recall correctly, the actual car, which was a 1974 model, came from a dealer in New Jersey.
Yes, it was 235 (net) hp; within a couple of years it dropped further, to 190. The same as a 2.4 L four cylinder Hinda [sic] Accord musters today.
If you take time 38 years in the other direction, the Cadillac won’t seem so bad. A 1936 Cadillac cabriolet with the Series 90 431ci V16 cost the modern equivalent of $130k and made 185hp.
I think it’s a bigger deal that a $5100 ’72 Chevy Caprice 454 made more power.
Thats not that wrong, the 454 was the best motor you could get on a Caprice, the 500 was standard on the Cadillac, go back a few years and its not that different between a Cadillac 427 or 429 and the optional top of the line 427 or 396 in a Chevrolet.
Once cheaper cars started getting good V8’s theo whole “expensive cars have more HP” thing started to vanish.
“13 mpg seemed like a testament to a lazy and indifferent automobile industry getting by on past laurels.”
Gas was dirt cheap for nearly a decade during the ‘muscle car era’. Buyers wanted big, bigger, biggest or fast, faster, fastest. The full sized car market was about 50% [or more] in 1970. The shortages and gas lines scared people in 1974, not the prices as much. In summer ’72 gas was 25 to 35 cents. By ’74, 55-75 cents. But, prices stabilized by fall ’75 and the last of the big cars started selling well again.
The ’77 downsized GM cars were seen as ‘a new style’ rather than ‘small’ to traditional buyers. And, the 16-18 mpg average was considered ‘wow’ after years of 10-13 for biggies.
Roscoe, arrest them Duke boys!
And that is the only reason I would want one.
My father leased a 72 Eldorado on a short term lease (it was a deal he bought at a charity auction). It was a beast. IIRC it was deuce and a quarter long. To get it to his spot in the parking ramp downtown, you had to take two passes. Stop, back up change the angle and try again. When the lease ran, he replaced it with an MB 280SEL 4.5 — Very sweet car. He never bought another GM vehicle.
The other note is that IIRC, the room in the back seat was astonishingly small. GM seemed to have a problem finding room for the back seat passengers, even in a 19 ft long car.
Yeah, but the trunk could house an entire family of immigrants (including grandma and grandpa)!
Fun Fact: That roman-numeral clock is from a 1973 Cadillac.
While I don’t care for the colour, I do like the car itself. I’ve always liked Cadillacs of the early 70s.
Looks like it was chiseled out of jade.
This is a beautiful car.
Just wondering why for example aussie saloon cars can still exist with their latest gen big blocks (HSV/Holden) but yanks really don’t…
“ . . . wore white belts and matching shoes.”
And maroon pants. Don’t forget the gawdawful maroon pants!
I think the 1973 Eldorado is actually an improvement over the ’72 despite the 5-mph front bumper. They got rid of the pseudo-1950s vertical trim piece just behind the doors, and the 1973-only rear bumper and taillights are very elegant.
Nice find. I’m not crazy about the tailight/fin on these though. IMHO you’re a bit hard on the 5mph bumper Caddys. Cadillac probably had the most unobtrusive rear bumpers during that era (the’74-76 Electra and 98 were also nicely integrated), unfortunately it took self-destructing plastic fillers to achieve the look.
For this car, and the other four full sized GM convertibles from ’71 through ’76, deference must be given to the “scissors” convertible top mechanism.
It is not durable and it can be quickly damaged by a careless operator. As I remember, the forward most bar, where it attaches to the windshield header, is the weak point – but it may be the entire mechanism.
I had this top on my ’72 LeSabre convertible and never had a problem with it but other owners of this style GM top have and I bet others here can contribute to the bad reputation for which I remember the top.
Also these tops were known to leak at the rear and soak the trunk. Buyer beware.
But this car is beautiful and a I certainly enjoy seeing it in the green finish with contrasting white interior. Thanks for posting the photos.
I was intent on buying one of these in the mid ’80s, for a summer car. Our DD was an ’85 J-2000 Sunbird wagon (that had a transplanted 1.8 turbo drive train).
I found a low mileage ’70 in Fort Wayne, red with white interior and my brother-in-law and I went to look at it. It was a Florida car.
The scissor top front bar was cracked, all of the hydraulics were leaky. The rear foot wells were badly rusted, and the driver door hinge was nearly shot. The doors on these cars were miles long – they had a rear set release handle. The AC evaporator was rotted out. We took a pass on the car.
But driving out of the subdivision, I spotted a ’74 VW Thing, cut a deal and we still have it. My kids (now 35 and 32) both learned to drive the Thing, and we still bop around in it during the summer.
The creation of the EPA ended the country’s time as exceptional, as it was intended. Putting resource allocation under control of the government was exactly what one would do to get the middle class back into serfdom.
Bill Watterson quit at the top. I’m not sure it was appreciated by many.
Hello? The EPA regs are what made Detroit get serious about fuel injection and catalytic converters. Which is why we now have super powerful, dependable cars with good gas mileage.
Wow, impressive convertible, makes me want to drive through Bat Country to Las Vegas while tripping on a butt load of drugs. Oh by the way, the passenger door is partially open. Shame that you cannot fit 5-6 people comfortably in a new convertible unless you buy a Rolls Royce.
This is my favorite year for Eldos. I thought the side scoop really makes it pop and the whole thing is just slick.
As for room, yes it is odd that this huge of a car couldn’t fit people in the back better, but honestly, I would rather have only one more person at most in it with me at a time. This is a cruiser, not a people hauler.
Those very easily damaged rear lights while looking cool are one of the reasons for the mandated railway sleeper bumpers the insurance industry must have bled ferociously paying for parking damage repairs on these.
Nah, too big and hard on gas for me.
I can’t remember if it was ’75 or ’76 that Cadillac reshaped the rear flanks and got rid of the skirts. Whenever that was the styling improved a lot. The earlier Eldos looked like the kind of car where the owner’s wife would own a BeDazzler. I don’t know how else to put the vibe that the skirted cars gave out, with their 50s air vent on the side.
They look cool now though.
1975, Eldorados had skirts from 1971-1974.
The kind of car that makes most people just stop and give it a long look. Impressive.
ANOTHER excellent, thought provoking article by P. N.
I borrowed a relative’s 71 Eldo convertible once (white with a fire-engine-red interior). It was in a resort town chockablock with Mercedeses, Porsches and even Ferraris, and I have NEVER gotten so much attention driving down the street. It was like piloting an ocean liner on the narrow lanes, and I had the hood protruding halfway into the intersections to see the cross traffic.
The 500 CID V-8 needed a light touch on the throttle; press it too hard and it was easy to screech the front wheels as all the weight heaved rearward on the marshmallow suspension.
If you want a car to “be seen” in, forget big-dollar European cars, this will get you all the attention in the world.
Unworkable as a daily driver, but if I had $ and space for a car collection I’d love to own one — it represents a preposterous level of wretched excess the likes of which are very unlikely to be produced ever again.
These big Eldo convertibles have sort of become the 1959 Cadillacs of their eras, 1959 Cadillacs were unloved for many years, until they started to gain attention in the 1980’s. These big Eldos were also unloved and ridiculed, but they have now become cool again.
I test-drove one of these in SF several years ago. Triple-black ’71. The guy who owned it lived on Potrero Hill, and driving through the neighborhood’s steep uphill street intersections was terrifying – you’re well into the intersection, and all you can see ahead of you is hood, which is also blocking the view of any traffic coming from the right. And I second the comment about the touchy throttle.
Not my cup of tea, but for what it is, it’s about as well-executed as it could have been.
Paul Niedermeyer commented on the engine. Wikipedia says that the downsized 425 was a 100 Lbs lighter weight, so the block was not the same as the 472/500 engines. The 500 CID engine was introduced on the 1970 Eldorado with 400 HP and 550 LB-FT of torque. The torque is amazing, although not unexpected for that size of engine. The horsepower might have been more, but fuel consumption may have been worrisome as it was. The net torque in the early 70’s is rated at 385 LB-FT @2400. Horsepower is 235. For 74 and 75 the torque is 380 lb-ft @2000 with 210 hp. Tighter emissions standards for 76 drop hp and torque by 20 units.
The 425 CID engine had 180 hp and 320 lb-ft of torque, but an electronic fuel injection system raised the hp to 195. I think the 368 (about 10% smaller) used the same block with a smaller bore.
At this point in time I feel that all of the FWD Eldorado’s of this era to be of somewhat dubious design. The 79 models seem much more sensible, being a bit smaller than the first gen Riviera. The older RWD Eldorado’s are good too.
I absolutely love the tail styling on these. All those angles and the “sharp” taillight pods–brilliant. Also probably easy to dent/mangle, but it’s a fantastic shape.
The front I’m less enthusiastic about–too baroque. Got worse before it got better once the 5 MPH bumper “cut off” the bottom of it, but I actually like the more restrained design of the ’75-’76 Eldos with the square lamps.
Also, $40,000 in today’s money? Man, that’s a killer deal. If Caddy made a convertible, it would probably cost north of $70,000. The XLR was over $100K in its last couple model years. You know what convertible will cost you nearly $40,000 today? A VW Eos. Yes, the car that is essentially a convertible version of the previous generation Jetta, and has been on the market for 10 model years with few changes. That one.
These Land Yachts are too big for me but they’re nice nevertheless .
I remember Joe Harding driving his wife’s red / white Eldo Rag Top , on a ‘ No Frills Iron Bottom Motoring Tour ‘ one year when his oldie packed it in the night before the Rally , watching him power slide it through some seriously twisty farm to market back roads was impressive to say the least .
Another Year Wally and his buddy drove one albeit *much* slower , they said it was simply wonderful to drive and enjoy the scenery flashing by .
FWIW , the 368 C.I. V-8 in my 1980 Caddy S & S Victoria hearse gets up and goes nicely thankyouverymuch =8-) .
-Nate
Looks like the Cadillac Clint Eastwood wanted to buy for cash in “Thunderbolt and Lightfoot”. And I`m sure it has all the catnip too.
I’ve seen the ’71 Eldorado coupe cited as the greatest possible example of a car that looked good in drawings, but that lost a lot of something in translation to actual sheetmetal. And indeed, it did look good in drawings.
I think part of it may have been the shift to wide, wide gaps in the bodywork that prevailed in this era. I’ve tired and managed to get my little finger through the hood to windshield gaps on this car. It felt like they just didn’t care how these cars came out.
In a very rare (for me) reverse CC effect, I literally saw one just like this yesterday in Cedar Lake Indiana.
I also saw a JDM Skyline R32 complete with RHD just cruising around the same area. Funny to see how the US license plate doesn’t fit properly.
It was a good day for interesting cars.
Wow, what a blast from the past! And I don’t mean 1972 but rather 2011.
One wonders what happened to all these commenters — Zackman, Carmine, Tom Klockau, calibrick, Chris M?
But Paul’s words still very much ring true today about this fine green 72 Eldo convertible. It really was the end of an era.
I miss Gem Whitman. Her female, from across the pond perspective added a lot of perspective to this site. I hope she is well and prospering.
Agreed, she was a pleasure to have on this site.
Here’s what I think of when I see one of these disappearing dinosaurs.
When I see a green Eldorado convertible I think about the car driven by “The Wizard” in the Tom T-Bone Stankus song, “Existential Blues.” They used to play that song a lot on Dr. Demento.
It sure is dusty in here, who’s poking around up in the rafters?
LOL
Not unheard of, but the featured car has a couple of mentionable rarities:
Rear window defog, per the switch above radio.
Fiber-optic lamp monitor with the rear “tell tale” still intact. It’s the “speck” seen in the center of the seat back. Usually the first paraded homecoming Queen and King broke that off.
When the 1971 Eldorado appeared in late 1970, I was delighted to see a convertible had joined the line but very disappointed by the overwrought, heavy-handed styling that looked like a throwback to a variety of earlier Cadillac styling features, particularly the 1953 Eldorado cited. Whatever desire for an Eldorado I felt for the 1967-’70 models disappeared with these. In fact, my enthusiasm for the Eldorado never revived, worsened as the decade wore on, improve a little for the 1979-’85 series and completely disappeared with that mid’80’s miniature caricature.
I still can’t look at these without feeling like I am sweating in a polyester pair of skin tight Angel Flight belt-less slacks with stacked heel shoes under each flared pant leg. My hair is in a blond ‘fro and I’m wearing an Italian horn neck chain in a wide open collar acetate and nylon shirt with a sunset print on it.
I’ve never been so damn uncomfortable in my life, but thought every girl was itching to grab me with all my junk jammed so painfully in those Jockey nylon thongs.
These cars were driven by stout hairy men who lived in the Heights and chain smoked White Owls. First generation guys who knew someone who could take care of business, if you know what I mean. The stereos were jammed with eight tracks of Guy Lombardo, Sinatra and Dino music. Their wives spoke with their hands and were good Catholics.
So, I get nauseous when I see these cars. I still feel like I got racked trying to climb into the back seat to sit next to Mary Margaret Alberghetti who’s smoking a Doral and wearing Chanel.
Your comment could only be written by someone who lived it. No amount of research could nail it so well by a wanna be wish I was there. I would just add that somewhere in that huge car, there were at least a couple of Julie London 8 tracks for those nights when the White Owl smoking owner traveled alone because his good Catholic wife who spoke with her hands had a previous commitment. Just big Daddy riding his Caddy listening to something that his good Catholic wife could not appreciate, but he thought of her (his wife) with every puff of his White Owl.
Easy to find fault in hindsight, even if someone did not live in the era. Today, seldom hear people degrading the massively large pickup truck ‘Land Yachts’. I started driving in the mid ’60s’. Grew up in the backseat of convertibles starting in the mid ’50s’. My parents were Depression era children, they wanted more for their children. I grew up in comfortable homes, they gave me & older brother nice cars. My 1st two cars were Thunderbirds (Dad borrowed and wreaked both). After Dad borrowed and wrecked my T-Bird gave me a check, go to his friend at a Chevy dealership, buy something practical (meaning not a Camaro). I bought a 1970, 396 SS Nova fully optioned only because I was pissed I lost my late model T-Bird. But I loved that car even though I was in my Hippie phase. 1972 (not 1974) disco clubs alive in NYC and Miami South Beach (Stonewall II @ 21st Beach & Collins Ave.)..After a few years bar-tending at South Beach disco clubs, parents bought me a new 1974 Buick convertible, back to college in Richmond. Late 1975, Richmond, made a bet with someone in real-estate, he could turn a profit in six-months. I won the bet, I got a brand new 1976 Eldo conv., white w.red interior. Drove it ten years, most fun car I owned. Did not have large bumpers, plenty of power and traction in bad weather, trunk space not found with current autos, interior space for two occupants, two cats with litter box, and one small dog. I could cruise in my 1976 Eldo conv. at 90 MPH for hours in my ‘Land Yacht’ and arrive at my destination fully relaxed. Anyone who wants to slam full size autos from the 1960-70s, step back and look at the full size pickup trucks & SUV’s crowding our parking lots today.