It’s November ’66 and Car And Driver tests two new models in the burgeoning Personal Luxury Car market. ‘It seems appropriate to compare the Thunderbird and Cadillac… the T-Bird is the vehicle that started it all, while the Eldorado is the most recent contender. Secondly, the two cars are all-new for 1967…’
Curiously, Car And Driver was more interested in the 4-door ’67 Thunderbird, since it was bringing a new concept to the segment. Meanwhile, expectations with Cadillac’s Eldorado were somewhat muted. Already familiar with the ’66 Toronado -Eldorado’s corporate sibling- testers had a good idea of what to expect from Cadillac’s version.
Ford was obviously trying to reinvent its ‘personal car’ with the ’67 T-Bird, as the 4-door idea showed. On appearances, the model gets some kudos for an improved interior devoid of the ‘bogus jet-liners’ pretensions of its predecessors. And the T-Bird was a ‘sharply styled, slightly smaller Galaxie with all the trimmings.’ As for driving, the model had a ‘wonderful penchant for silent 70-mph cruising speeds and handling with a heavy dose of understeer.’
In Motor Trend’s review, they found the ’67 Eldorado to have a character all of its own against the Toronado. Car And Driver wasn’t quite sold on that idea. For starters, it got the same complaints the Toro’ had received for its standard 4-wheel drums (a $100 disc brake option is mentioned, improving matters greatly on the Eldorado). Regardless of their misgivings, the Cadillac is considered an ‘effective evolution of the front-wheel drive Toronado.’ Its suspension used the air-leveling system employed on the Fleetwood line, and Cadillac’s lightweight 429 in. was rather satisfactory under driving.
The Eldorado’s raison d’etre was its styling and interior, which was as ‘sumptuous as any automobile’s.’ The car was ‘impeccably assembled, with the kind of panel-fit and paint work that stands up against the best that Stuttgart… and Crewe can produce.’
‘Both cars had their appealing aspects, but in total, they left us with an impression of bulk and clumsiness… an unfortunate departure from the original concept of the “personal” car… in many ways good automobiles, but they are not uniquely different -except in a styling sense- from a dozen high-priced luxury vehicles being marketed in the United States.’
Regardless of the tester’s views, market tendencies could not be denied: ‘The Thunderbird and Eldorado… are civilized machines, keyed to a market that should expand significantly within the next decade…’
Further reading:
Curbside Classic: 1967 Ford Thunderbird Landau Sedan – Are Four Doors Really Better Than Two?
I just finished a reply to another comment on the decline of Cadillac, and here it is – the moment the rot set in. The mid-60s was Peak Cadillac, and the Eldorado was in most ways the peak of *that*, following the model that had been used before most notably with Hydra-Matic where Oldsmobile was the first mover on a new technology since Cadillac buyers were to be spared teething troubles to the extent possible, and Caddy comes in with a cleanly styled car, avant-garde in design and technology, in an up-and-coming segment. Fully poised to slide in as the most aspirational of aspirational cars. But then –
DRUM. BRAKES.
Some years ago PN rightly gave a GM Deadly Sin label to them on the Toronado, and to my mind it’s even more unforgivable that it carried over to the Eldorado. Holding adequate stopping power out as an expensive option on an already-expensive car was a forfeiture of leadership, and Cadillac has spent the last 50-odd years as a follower.
To be compared with the Renault R10, which had discs all around. Oh yeah, another one of those classics from GM’s “we can do no wrong” days.
I agree completely on the brakes. It was one thing for Oldsmobile to release wholly inadequate drum brakes when the Toro came out in 1966. But they did not have discs available to offer then. Cadillac, on the other hand, had the discs there and ready to put on the cars, but put them on the options list. It has always amazed me how slow GM was to embrace disc brakes.
I did give the ’66 Toro DS status, but the brakes were just one part of that. And I gave the ’67 Eldo DS status specifically for the brakes, and compared it to the R10:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/1967-cadillac-eldorado-vs-renault-r-10-an-unfair-comparison-thanks-to-a-gm-deadly-sin/
I should point out that even with the optional front discs, braking performance was still mediocre (312 feet from 60). An R10 did it in 190′.
The Eldorado (and Toronado) needed 4-wheel disc brakes, with extral large ones ont the front and a height-sensitive proportioning valve for the rear brakes to reduce pressure as the body leaned forward under heavy braking.
312 feet from 80 mph. At least there’s a long crumple zone.
Yes; I got that wrong.
The test results for the Eldorado were from 80 mph. The results still weren’t good, given that, then as now, 80 mph was a common speed on interstate highways, particularly in the West and Midwest.
Interestingly, the 1967 Cadillac full-line brochure made no mention of optional disc brakes for the Eldorado, even though Car and Driver tested a car so equipped, and Consumer Reports mentions the availability of optional disc brakes in its annual “Auto Issue” for 1967.
Perhaps Cadillac was being coy because disc brakes were not available even as an option on the “regular” Cadillacs. Lincoln, meanwhile had offered front discs as standard since 1965, and the Imperial made them standard for 1967.
For 1968, disc brakes became standard for the Eldorado, and were offered as an option on the rest of the line. This is per both Car and Driver and Consumer Reports. But the 1968 full-line brochure made no mention of standard disc brakes for the Eldorado. It only stated that disc brakes were now available as an option for those customers who wanted them.
For 1969, power front discs became standard across the line-up, and the full-line brochure stated this.
My Dad bought a new ’68 Renault R10 after his ’59 Beetle had gotten totalled parked in front of our house. At least by then the Eldorado also came with disks (but the ones on the R10 weren’t power assisted, guess they didn’t need to be).
We still lived up in Vermont then, though I doubt my Dad would ever have considered the Tornado nor the Eldorado for a 2nd car, at least they did have front wheel drive (his first of those was another 10 years later, a ’76 Subaru DL, which he also bought in Vermont (Winooski) though that was during his 2nd “tour” in Vermont, having moved to Virginia in between). Anyhow, for a light car, rear engine RWD was about as good as it got except if you could afford a Saab. Yes, the R4 and later the R16 were also FWD but this was before the R16 was available.
Anyhow, the water cooled 1.1. liter would have been no match for the engine in the Eldorado, but traction was most important to him, plus it was only a commuter car….when he sold it in 1974, it barely had 22000 miles on it. Maybe couldn’t go fast, but it did have the disc brakes (handy in the mountains!) and radial tires. He didn’t use it as a family car, but it did have 4 doors and a little more luggage space than his Beetle anyhow.
The article implies the Toronado was still drum-brakes-only in 1967, though front disks became optional that year in both the Toro and Eldo. Of course, they should have been standard on both cars from the start.
I didn’t know Cadillac soft-pedaled FWD in marketing these cars. Weird.
Interesting how long it took GM and Ford to figure out that the costs of producing a personal luxury car could be significantly reduced by using standard intermediate coupes as baseline. Having their own bodies was not sustainable as soon as the Monte Carlo showed up with its basic Chevelle body. 1960s era personal luxury cars had a lot of unnecessary costs to produce. Eventually Thunderbird set sales records using the Torino body as GM made gobs of cash doing the same for their boulevard faux luxury cruisers. This line of thought just wasn’t quite there in 1967.
The Pontiac Grand Prix of a year earlier was the first hint of that strategy. The Monte Carlo was merely enough proof that even the most dimwitted accountant could understand.
The ponycars before that really, just applied to luxury, which I argue the Cougar and Charger had the formula discovered before the GP and MC, the latter two just changed the image from the 60s jet age-space inspired styling to that retro neoclassical style.
The flip side of the coin is the success of the new breed of cheaper to produce PLCs likely encouraged the manufacturers to take that formula to extremes like the Versailles and Cimmaron. The 77 Thunderbird at least used a lot of unique sheetmetal that separated it from the LTD II, which the much less successful Elite predecessor did not.
While I was never wowed by this generation of Thunderbird, I have always found the 4-door both better looking and more interesting.
I also have mixed feelings on the Eldorado. Its styling was very well done and in most other ways, it was a highly competent car. However, I have always been a little amazed that Cadillac went with a front bench seat. Surely they had seen that the Toronado’s “six passenger” configuration was not popular, and that cars with buckets and consoles had ruled the personal coupe segment for years. I agree with Syke above that this car carried several clues that Cadillac was in the process of beginning its long, slow slide to irrelevance.
It is also interesting to get C&D’s impression of what a personal luxury coupe was supposed to be. They don’t say so, but they seem to be describing the Avanti and Hawk that had only fairly recently gone away. It is a shame that those cars had to make do with such an obsolete chassis, and that better funded competitive efforts were so flabby.
Agree on the bench seat. That would be a deal breaker. It’s bad enough that you have a massive car that can, at best, seat four people. But to then have the two people in the front have to share seat adjustments in a luxury vehicle seems ridiculous.
FWIW, buckets and a short console between the seats were optional.
The Eldo had the Astro bench, it had separate seat backs, that looked identical to the optional buckets, as well as a wide fold down arm rest. The arm rest made the driver feel snugged in and secure, and was a great place to rest your right arm. From the outside, it looked like the car had buckets. The full width seat base, as well as the column shifter, made it possible to enter the car from the curb side, and slide behind the wheel. Many people still preferred to do this. Many front seat passengers (couples) liked to sit next to the driver, and little kids could still ride in front, they loved that.
I’ve had Rivieras with Astro Bench seats and buckets, as well as Coupe de Villes with similar seats, and I’ve always preferred the Astro type bench. It was the assumption that the driver would be a male and with the seat positioned for him, the passenger would have plenty of room. Lincoln took care of that problem with the split bench with dual armrests
It’s unfortunate that the PLC concept was lost with bigger, heavier models. From 1967 on, it was the Cougar that was the ideal size, though it was never as prestigious as the T Bird. Though the Cougar got a bit too big for a time.
> t is also interesting to get C&D’s impression of what a personal luxury coupe was supposed to be. They don’t say so, but they seem to be describing the Avanti and Hawk that had only fairly recently gone away. It is a shame that those cars had to make do with such an obsolete chassis,
Obsolete as their chassis may have been, even those offered disk brakes back in 1963, standard equipment on Avantis and optional on Hawks (and other Studes).
I was initially impressed with the Eldorado when it came out in 1967, but that feeling petered out quickly. 1967-1969 were pivotal years, as the top European imports were really coming on strong, with bigger engines (BMW six, etc.) and such. Whereas top American cars like the Cadillac had once been competitive on a global basis, now increasingly they were catering to a segment that placed soft isolation and gaudy styling above else; it was of course the Great Brougham Epoch, and all that implied.
Ironically, the Eldo kind of missed the boat in terms of the changing tastes of that trend; the Conti MK III meanwhile nailed it, and became the standard-bearer of that era. And the Eldorado never properly got its mojo back; Ford had once again done a Mustang, in defining the definitive look of the PLC, with a gaudy RR-inspired grille and other details.
The ’71 Eldorado re-introduced opera windows, the standup hood ornament, and the landau roof (’72), all three of which were predominant in stylish American 70s coupes (and perhaps a factor in big coupes disappearing later). Unfortunately, it was also gigantic and bloated.
It is interesting to note the acceleration times of both cars. As a kid, I was fed tales about how doggone fast 1960s cars were and how emission controls destroyed acceleration. Then I read periods tests and see the truth: malaise really wasn’t as bad as we think.
My dad’s 1979 Impala would do 0-60 in less than ten seconds, which is significantly faster than either of these cars.
‘Personal Luxury Car’ had to be one of the more ludicrous and cynical marketing terms dreamt up by Detroit – all it appeared to mean was already poor space utilization even more poorly utilized.
Sort of like “sport” utility vehicle or “mini” van, eh?
Ford took the wrong turn with this ‘Bird and it took them 10 years to get it turned around. Just to damn big and bloated, 4 doors? The grill makes the car look even wider than it is. The Caddy is what Caddy is, distinctive only in the fact that is over done and absolutely massive.
Every time is see one of these it reminds me of my senior year in high school. One of the girls had Eldo with the 500 ci in lime green with a white vinyl top, the girl was about 4’ 10″ and maybe 90 lbs, perfect cheerleader for the top of the cheerleader stack, Always wondered how she reached the peddles in that Eldo.
Ford was concerned that the wildly popular Mustang would make the Thunderbird irrelevant, and thus deemed it necessary to push the Thunderbird upmarket to differentiate it.
And then came the Lincoln Mark III-IV. It was wildly more profitable than the Thunderbird of 1970-76. Iacocca probably brought more shareholder value on those bloated Mark coupes than 15 years of Mustangs
These old road tests really give an interesting perspective on upscale American Fords of the late Sixties.
First,.looking at an LTD or T-bird, there really isn’t much of a leap to Lincoln. Second, remind me again of why Mercury was so important to Ford? They could have dumped that nameplate after the Continental and Edsel fiasco. Ford was developing its own upscale models and no one would have missed either Mercury or the Alfred Sloan influence at Ford Motor Co. which said you must have an Olds-Buick-Dodge-Chrysler competitor. They really didn’t need it any more than Toyota needed Scion.
Only Hank the Deuce knows the reason, and he isn’t talking.
The C&D article does mention that Ford experimented with FWD and that the layout used by the Toronado and Eldorado was covered by a Ford patent. I’ve read one of the reasons Ford didn’t use it was due to serious structural problems with the unitized body T-Birds had at the time when used with FWD. It has been reported that a test model literally broke in half on the test track. May have been due to the lack of a driveshaft tunnel for a backbone if they were trying for a flat floor like GM twins touted.
Furthermore I have come to the opinion in hindsight that the 4-door T-Bird made a case for a downsizing of the typical large 4-door luxury car beating the Cadillac Seville to that market by 8 years. If you look at the size and weight of the two, they are almost the same.
The Eldo front wheel drive must of had some unpleasant torque steer. Did not read about this in the article. Maybe I missed it? I have never driven one so I really don’t know.
It didn’t. Torque steer is caused by suspension geometry and unequal length drive shafts, and is not necessarily or directly related to the amount of engine torque. Even cars with weak engines can have bad torque steer.
Oh yes. My Fiat 128 hatch had impressive torque steer. Quite out of proportion for a short stroke, rev happy 1300.
One thing I’ve never noticed about the four-door T-Bird that is obvious from the side-view on the specifications page is the “high hat” roof. Maybe it’s just the low angle of the photograph, but it’s not a good look (in my opinion).
The Toronado and Eldorado are one of those rare combinations of either Greatest Hit or Deadly Sin. The GH part is the styling. The Eldorado, particularly from the rear 3/4 view, is simply a work of art.
But, oh those brakes. I don’t think it’s an understatement to say the Unitized Power Package (UPP) cars’ standard front drum brakes borders on criminal. Not only was all of the big engine’s weight up front, but so was the transmission. I’d really love to see collision statistics with those early cars. It can’t have been good, and I wonder how a class-action lawsuit was never filed. Maybe since there was so much crumple zone area, there were that many fatalities or serious injuries.
Not to mention that all the R&D was essentially wasted as GM never promoted the FWD aspect of these cars. For all intents and purposes, they might as well have been RWD. It was all a marketing ploy in a vain attempt to align the cars (especially the Toronado) with the Cord 810/812.
One final note on those UPP cars is the massive drive chain (‘HY-VO’) used for the engine/transmission combination.
Most likely the collision statistics on these cars weren’t that bad, as they weren’t being bought by the young, single males who were buying muscle cars or the less expensive British sports cars. I remember reading that the typical Eldorado buyer during this era was a married male in his late 40s.
Looking at how moribund GM is nowadays, it’s hard to credit that they once had the money to experiment to the degree they did in the sixties. The finance guys seem to have been on a tight rein, allowing the engineers to pretty much do what they wanted. I get the feeling FWD was more like ‘something different for the catalog’ rather than the most being made of the packaging opportunities.
As for the Thunderbird ‘sedan’, it had teenage me wondering just what was the point of the bigger Galaxie! Now I understand it, more like an upmarket sedan alternative, rather in the vein of Mercedes’ CLA ‘four door coupe’. I get the feeling the market wasn’t ready for it in the late sixties though!
Yes, it was a four door coupe. And it did not really compete with the Galaxie at all.
Where on Earth did you find a fractional-scale 4-door T-Bird promo?? I have to add one of those to my collection! I never thought anyone made a scale model of the 4-door ‘Bird; all the examples I ever saw were the clichéd 2-door variants, as was the case with every scale model of every car save for the Lincolns!
The four-door T-Bird was a novelty when it came out, but nothing more. Never should have made it a four door. But that car had more changes than any other. Started out as a sporty two seater and then morphed into a 2+2, which while bemoaned by the purists at the time, was not really such a bad idea. Opened up a much larger market for the car. But the four-door ‘Bird did nothing to increase sales long term. The T-Bird was a personal luxury car, not a family four door sedan. If you wanted a luxury four door back then, there were plenty of other choices.
I had the Aurora slot car track set with a pale blue 2 door ’67 Thunderbird. Competed with my brother who always used the silver Corvette (natch!!!).
If I could go back in my Time Machine, I would grab the 4 door T-bird in the above review. Always have a soft spot for these Beasts of Burden.
The tail end of an era when anyone would describe a Cadillac as “impeccably assembled”. Shame how quickly Cadillac assembly quality seemed to slide downhill thereafter.
We had a 1977 Cadillac Sedan DeVille and I thought it was pretty well-assembled. I liked the downsized GM full sizers for ’77 and by most accounts, these were pretty good quality cars (1977-1979)
I’ve said this before but I’ll say it again, the convertible was the soul of the Thunderbird, even if in that configuration it was a tepid seller in the grand scheme of things every Thunderbird hardtop had an image that hinted at it maybe possibly being one to casual onlookers, the hardtop roofs from 58-66 deliberately looked removable or retractable. The 67s threw any sense of that out the window, and the 4-door attempt to broaden its appeal was incredibly misguided, it’s kind of eye rolling to read this article with the author celebrating the departure from the jet age “21st century”(pfft, if only!) instruments that made the previous generations interesting for the dull round gauges in a faux wood background like every other Ford car would have for the next 15 years.
This was the point the Tbird name became irrelevant, and it was probably inevitable in the wake of baroque neoclassical trends poisoning the industry, the polar opposite of what the model represented in its golden years. I draw a lot of parallels with the Mustang Mach E, a totally different vehicle with pedestrian packaging wearing an iconic name, one that if successful will just make that iconic name simply be just “a” name sooner or later. Even though Thunderbird had a sales high with the Torino based models later, and a sort of return to sportier roots with the aero models, the name just seemed to exist out of inertia and get attached to otherwise appealing cars that could have been called just about anything else.
The 67 Eldorado I still think is one of the most timelessly good looking Cadillacs ever produced, but it’s skin deep. The interior is pretty dull, the UPP was completely unnecessary, and it begs the question did Cadillac ever really need a bespoke full size personal luxury coupe? Or did it just waste resources that could have been used in keeping the standard bodied Cadillacs the quality standard of the world (which were still very attractive in their own right in 1967). GM had more resources than any car company, but there’s a notable correlation in dips in quality, dips in engineering, and even dips in styling that occurred every time an all new model segment was shoehorned into the lineup, and not just at Cadillac. The Eldorado should have been a show car whose great styling was used on THE Cadillac, but it instead split the lineup.
SemiOT: This ’67 Ford Custom has appeared in the neighborhood. It’s not in front of a known collector’s house, so its presence is sort of unexpected.
Another pic. It’s automatic.
I think the ’67 Eldorado was an important image car for Cadillac. It took the personal luxury coupe concept to the top level, Cadillac, at a time when PLCs would soon become big sellers. It was a big factor in Lincoln’s decision to create the Continental Mark III, and created a Cadillac/Lincoln “king of the hill” rivalry which lasted many years.
Technically, the ’67 Eldo could have been a better car, but its crisp styling was beautiful in a boldly confident way (especially with no vinyl top) in my opinion.
I also think the Eldo’s styling was a big influence on the ’69 Pontiac Grand Prix (especially the roofline), which was a hugely important car for the emerging “affordable” personal luxury car market.