When I saw that Brendan had queued up his ’83 Eldorado for today, I knew it was time to write up the ’70 Eldorado I shot last fall, if only to provide a counterpoint and show how much Cadillac changed in just over a decade.
The seventh-generation Eldorado was introduced in 1967 on the Oldsmobile Toronado platform, which included the front-wheel-drive (FWD) Unified Powerplant Package mated to the then-standard Cadillac 429 c.i.d (7.0L) V8 engine. 1970 saw the introduction of the largest production V8 engine used in automobiles to date: a 500 c.i.d (8.2L) behemoth putting out 400 (gross) HP. A front-tire-smoking 60 MPH could be achieved in just over nine seconds, impressive for a car weighing over two tons. Compare and contrast with the ’83 Eldo’s 4100: half the displacement yielded only 1/3 half the (net) horsepower, but still had to drag around 80% of the weight.
Now admittedly, the baroque interior of the Biarritz (and what’s with naming a car after two completely different cities, anyway?), looks a bit “richer” than the peeling woodgrain appliqué on black plastic of the ’70, but ride quality of the ’70 was still consistent with Cadillac’s slogan, “The Standard of the World” at this point. Cadillac was very careful to maintain that brand expectation even down to its marketing, which only hinted at the sporting capabilities of the car with phrases such as “unusually spirited performance,” and “brilliantly responsive.”
Hidden headlights disappeared with the debut of the 1970 model, and, while sticking with the FWD platform, Eldorado would become much bulkier with the 1971 restyle (looking very much like a tarted up Chevy to this writer’s eye). Curiously, the restyled 1971 Oldsmobile Toronado looked suspiciously similar to the just-departed 7th-gen Eldorado’s styling. By the time Brendan’s 1983 Biarritz rolled off the line, there was visually little difference between it and its Olds stablemate, though the Eldo still had the edge in displacement, with an available 6.0L V8.
One could make a case that Cadillac was standing on reasonably solid ground in 1970 with the “Standard of the World” claim. By 1983, however, the “standard” was little more than a badge-engineered shell, albeit with a very nice interior and the isolated ride quality Cadillac owners expected. The Eldorado name would soldier on almost two more decades before finally being discontinued in 2002 after a fifty year run.
If you’re curious what the ’67 Eldo with its hidden headlights looks like, head right over here.
The 400 hp is gross, while the 4100’s is 135 net. The net for the 500 is probably about 250 to 260. The tuning for the 500 CID engine is not all that hot . 550 lb-ft of torque (gross) is a lot though.
Yup. To put it in perspective, the following year, when Cadillac lowered the compression ratio and dropped the gross horsepower rating to 365 hp, they also published the net rating: 235 hp. That suggests the 1970 was in the 250–270 net horsepower range, as Fred notes. So, the 4100 was making about half the power from half the displacement — kind of a wash.
Ah, forgot about that – thanks for clarifying.
Fixed now.
With that sort of power inflation for the gross figures, it is almost surprising that they didn’t include the amount of heat lost to the cooling system, they could have had another couple of hundred hp.
I don’t believe that the resemblance of the 1971 Oldsmobile Toronado to this car was an accident. The first-generation Toronado had one decent year of sales – when it debuted in 1966 – and then sales tailed off for 1967 and didn’t recover. The 1971 models scored improved sales. Buyers in this class didn’t necessarily want super-sized fastbacks.
The performance provided by that engine didn’t come cheap. Popular Mechanics surveyed owners of the 1969 Eldorado (which still used the 472 cubic inch V-8) for its “Owners Report” series. Owners reported an average of 9.7 mpg around town, and 12.3 mpg on the highway. When the magazine surveyed owners of the 1972 Eldorado, it found that they obtained an average of 9.3 mpg around town, and 11. 6 mpg on the highway.
Wow, what a difference in just 3 years: The ’67 is spectacular and the ’70 is just average, at best. It’s not just the lack of hidden headlights, as the interior is just not as special either.
(and what’s with naming a car after two completely different cities, anyway?)
You mean like Cordoba and Corinth?
I had kind of forgotten that this style of Eldo ran through 1970. I had also forgotten about this version with the open headlights, and had never noticed the change in taillight styling. I like these taillights, but the massive end cap sort of takes away from the look. As much as I like these, I think that Lincoln hit the target demographic much more on center than this car did.
There is, however, something obscenely seductive about 500 cubic inches.
That end cap appears to start with the ’67. The ’67 light lenses stretched back a lot further through the cap. I think the tired condition of this car along with some harsh lighting make it look a bit worse than normal.
One thing for sure, Cadillac and Lincoln offered this buyer demographic some real choice with the Eldo vs. Mark
8.2 liters! Holy moly! I’, stuck with my little 2002 tiny 2.2 liter engine.
Prodigious torque, along with prodigious thirst; you almost needed your own private oil well to supply fuel for these beasts. My brother and his wife had a 1973 Eldo for several years in the late seventies. It was a great car for highway trips but that was about it; this particular model got around 8 MPG in town and a, hardly better, 11 MPG on the road. Very comfortable to ride in though.
I have 2.0 liters, but with turbo my torque (net) is 260 to 5500 with the horse power peaking at 272 (net). My car is probably a ton lighter weight too.
Forget the actual #s. This car was the epitome of the saying: “No Replacement, For Displacement.”
Hot Rodders actually stumbled on the power potential of the 8.2 liter monster in the 80s and 90s. Many a junk yard Cadillac donated its engine to many a project (just like many 460 Lincolns donated their hearts to the Hot Rod world.)
Yep… we stuffed a 500 into a 1978 Impala sedan, didn’t do much to improve the HP rating of the 500, but stuffed into a 1500 pound lighter car made it a rocket.
Could it be the last great Cadillac?It was the Daddy of luxury cars,a huge engine even bigger than the 460 in a Lincoln or Imperial’s 440.Bad times were soon to come for US car makers,horrid styling,performance cuts and ugly bumpers.Compare it to the Volvo looking car from 1986 and it doesn’t seem so bad.
Not my cup of tea,I’m an ordinary working class girl a Ford, Chevy or Plymouth compact or intermediate will do fine for me
Nice car! I did like the 67-68 better. The 70 Cadillac dash did not seem as quality to me. I had a used DeVille conv in the mid 70’s. Great car. My Mom had a 70 Olds 98 and I thought it had a better quality dash. Is that 76 Eldorado wheel covers?
I think you are spot on. Olds interiors – dash in particular – tended to be better than Cadillac from ’68 – ’76. With the ’77 full size, Cadillac seemed competitive with Olds, but not necessarily better.
First thing I thought when I seen these photos was the wrong wheel covers!
Missing rear wheel lip mouldings and the wrong wheel covers, but this ’70 looks like a good place to start a mild restoration. I don’t think I fully appreciated until just now how much the ’79 – ’85 Eldorado was inspired by the 1st gen of FWD Eldorados, particularly the 1970. I think they did a pretty good job of reinterpreting this car for the ’80s.
I’d agree that the ’67 is the cool cat of FWD Eldorados, but I believe the very similar ’68 takes care of the reputation of poor brakes in the ’67 – thanks to the addition of standard front discs.
“Sleek from the 70s” beats “Boxy from the 80s” ANY day!
I was never sure which version had the hidden headlights and which version had the exposed headlights, I always get these cars mixed up with the 1971-72 Oldsmobile Toronado’s due to its resemblance. The 1967-70 Eldorado’s are my all time favorites.
Toronado’s had hidden headlights from 1966-1969, and again from 1986-1992, Eldorados from 1967-1968(not 1970 like the article incorrectly states) and Rivieras from 1965-1969
And the Riviera from 65-69.
The styling on this car influenced many Cadillacs. The Ciel and Elmiraj concept cars being two of them:
Apparently something is right about those past Cadillacs. One thing you can say about the 1970, it is very unmistakable. The Eldorado did influence the 1971 Oldsmobile Toronado. It was no accident. The gentleman who posted earlier was correct in what he said.
I like that Ciel a lot. It does look like a Cadillac.
OOps! I am sorry.
I meant this as the last video:
This generation of Eldorados has always represented the “real” Eldorados for me. I don’t like black on many cars, but on these it looks so right. I prefer the hidden-headlight years, but the sleek, clean, elegant, show-car gorgeous rear-end has always captivated me.
Never was a fan of the switch to exposed headlights but these were still gorgeous nonetheless, that back end is one of the prettiest automotive asses ever stamped.
Big cars are not for me. Happier with my little plastic Japanese renderings. Did own one once though. Had a wife who needed to be thought of as “Miss Got Rocks”. She went out and bought a 77 (I think) caddie DeVille. I have nothing bad to say about that car.
It had a 425 and there were options for larger engines. She traded in a 72 Cutlass Supreme which I liked better than the Caddie. Have to say though that she ran it into the back of a Dodge at highway speed and with my Son in the back. Probably would have killed them both in the Olds. That was the start of us and block styled Lincoln Town Cars.
If I had the means at the time that 425 and TH400 would have gone from the wrecked Caddie into my 68 C10. I think that would have been almost bolt in simple and hard to resist.
I had completely forgot about the Eldorado with it’s sharp, knife edge styling. Not a bad looking car at all, even though the Toronado roots are easy to see. Makes me understand the sharp corners on the current models heritage. Do agree the dash looks a little plain, but all that torque burning the front tires is really cool. Like they used to say, It I’ll pass anything but a gas station.
I think of these as kind of a late 60s early 70s CTS-V. A sports car of sorts amongst cushy luxobarges.
That said, I think they look pretty nice. However personally, I’d rather have a ’72 Eldo droptop, the one with the air scoops on the side.
Largest displacement V8 used in a production car, but not largest of any engine type – there have been inline sixes and eights more than 50% larger. I wonder if the 300hp power rating of the Bugatti Royale was net – surely they weren’t into marketing tricks to pump up their power outputs!
As for the styling of the car, I much prefer the earlier stacked headlight cars, or the first Toronado if restricted to an E-body. The early Eldorado styling is too much like a caricature, with the features exaggerated as nobody would ever see the car closer than a hundred yards away. I would much prefer the styling of the 1983, even more if it hadn’t lost all of the flair in the side panels.
Correction – was supposed to read “as if nobody would ever see the car closer than a hundred yards away”
I think I said in Brendan’s post, which I read first, that the ’79-’85 Eldos were as nice looking as the ’67-71s. Where is the erase button when you need it.
I think the switch from gross to net Hp ratings was for the same purpose as the switch from cubic inches to liters…so Americans wouldn’t freak at the shrinking of engines and dropping of horsepower..that’s also right about when engine callout emblems went away. that said, gross was an engine on a test stand with open exhausts, and net was supposed to be in the car with all exhaust and pollution crap hooked up.
Cadillac did provide net as well a gross ratings for the 1949 engine. The net ratings were introduced when engines were being detuned for lower octane lead free gasoline. I don’t know it the intent was some sort of political play or if it was to confuse things.
Gross ratings were done with just the engine hooked up to a dynamometer with no mufflers, no fan or water pump, no generator, no air cleaner, probably an oil pump. Net ratings included the A/C system if standard.
Yep gross figures with that arrangement were absolutely meaningless, I mean not even a water pump?
I still get annoyed when casual car fans brag about old gross HP ratings and say “HP was massively cut in 1972.” Having no idea about the difference between net and Gross HP.
Would be nice if there was some sort of “magic retro active HP calculator” to convert gross to net, but its not like Metric system.
The old gross ratings from the 60’s with high compression engines can’t be compared with net rating with lower compression engines designed for lead free lower octane gasoline.
Agreed. There was a certain dropoff just from the conversion in measurement, but there was also a real dropoff due to lowered compression and early emissions tuning. As with most things, there is some truth mixed in with the legend.
Knock 1/3 off the old gross rating and you’ll be pretty close most of the time.
A lot depends on whether you have single or dual exhausts. Dual exhaust is worth 25 or more net horsepower. However, when the catalytic converters were added, most exhaust systems went single, and there would probably been on converter anyway, so net ratings were down by 1975 from 1972. I don’t think there is a good way to estimate, except that gross horsepower could be much more than net, perhaps a third more than the net.
Yep, drove a friends stock 75 trans am with 455 ho and 4 spd, that car felt plenty strong, almost stronger than my 99 vette with 6 spd.
I don’t know what they were thinking with this nose restyle. The ’67-’69 Eldorados were an absolutely gorgeous design, all around. One of the most beaufiul Cadillacs ever, to my eye. And from the front wheelwells rearward, this car’s styling is the same. But that nose….the low, heavily overhung grille looks like it’s scowling, and the parts-bin headlight buckets just don’t look right at all. Even without knowing what had come before, it’s still not a good look. And the leading edges of the fenders with their large indicator/parking lamp lenses remind me of the Lincoln Mark IV.
The ’67-’69 were beautiful; 3/4 of this one is beautiful.
69 has this same front end pretty much with horizontal bars instead of the 1970’s egg crate, only the 1967-1968 Eldorados have the cool hidden headlights and the wide egg crate grille.
You’re rlght, I was thinking of the eggcrate/hidden lamp treatment, didn’t realize that stopped after ’68.
But the ’69 does look better than the ’70 to me, despite the differences being minor.
After looking at a number of 69 and 70 photos, I think I see your point Chris M. The hood seems to project out more and the horizontal bars in the grille are more prominent than the vertical on the 1970 vs the 1969.
This year still looks really nice, specially the backside (which they didn’t seem to mess with) but there’s something about that 1967 front end…
But then there’s those 500 cubic inches…that 8.2 liter is just too alluring.
So I’m thinking…get a 1967 and drop a 500ci from a 1970? Sounds about right…
Amazing how the cheapened the interior on even the top of line Eldo. My parents had a 1966 Deville, which turned out to be the last year of quality interiors at GM. The 66 had stainless steel trim and solid metal knobs, fabrics, leather, and plastics were also first class and bullet-proof. As you can see from the pictures of this Eldo, all the quality materials were replaced with cheap plastics and fake wood – no wonder the country-club set were rapidly switching to Mercedes and BMW in the 1970s.