(first posted 5/25/2015) “Don’t overthink it.” This is an admonishment I’m used to. It can be a real buzzkill to have someone explain to you, in scientific, psychological terms, why you like something. Sometimes, you just like something, and don’t need an in-depth analysis of why. This 1967 Cadillac Eldorado is one such object. One look at this jaunty, juniper-colored masterpiece, and I want to go home, open up all the windows, put on some Lalo Schifrin records and pour myself an extra-dry martini. Looking at this car makes me feel good.
I understand that in order to sell in today’s market, even specialty cars have to be somewhat practical – given that they cost a larger percentage of what we earn compared to yesteryear, given all the extras and safety equipment they must have. I also understand that recreating a luxobarge today with the wildly inefficient proportions of a car like this one (long hood, long rear overhang, compromised interior space) would be a futile exercise. But just look at those lines. I wish I could afford a suit as crisply tailored.
In a recent post by CC contributor Jim Klein (CC Capsule: 1976 Cadillac Sedan de Ville Centennial Sheriff Edition), he opined that his subject car was “the kind of car that made America great and made people want to cross the big pond to get here. Nobody is coming here to drive a CTS.” Word to all of that. Here’s hoping the looks of Cadillac’s future models incorporate a little more paintbrush and a little less protractor. If the brilliant, stately styling of the new CT6 flagship is any indication, Cadillac appears to be continuing its move back in that direction.
Andersonville, Chicago, Illinois.
Saturday, October 11, 2014.
Related reading:
Curbside Capsule: 1970 Cadillac Eldorado Hardtop Coupe – Peak Displacement
Classic Curbside Classic: 1967 Cadillac Eldorado – On The Dark Side
Must be the CC effect, I just saw one the other day sitting outside a local body shop. It was a blue 1968 Eldo that was well worn looking but very solid and complete. It may even have had original paint or at least a very old repaint worn to the primer on the hood. Nice cars, one of my favorite Cadillac but seeing one in person made me remember how huge these cars are .
Today people still drive inefficient barges but they’re computer designed to have the most potential efficiency possible and therefore they’re socially acceptable to own and drive. With the exception of energy costs now a days all that’s really changed is sociological bullshit. In 1968 you chose to buy a car that was large without the ability to haul around half your coworkers and whatever payload. Today you have no choice but to buy a car that has the potential to haul around half your coworkers and whatever payload if you want large, and then choose not to, as is usually the case.
I don’t get the buzz about the CT6, it doesn’t seem any more special to me than a CTS or ATS and certainly not the V versions of each. What brilliance am I missing exactly?
The Eldorado’s did not have full bucket seats/console through the 1978 model years, so they would easily carry 6 adults. Probably you would not want to drive long distances with that many on board. While my CTS might carry 5 adults, the one in the middle of the rear seat would not be comfy.
The ATS is comparable to the 3-series BMW. The 3 series has been the bench mark for sports sedans. From what I understand the ATS out handles the current 3 series. This does not mean it is better, as the 3 series ride is a bit softer (which used to be bad), but the ATS is probably as good as the BMW.
The CT6 is a luxury sedan. I think it may replace the XTS (or I think the XTS will go away), but this is not clear. Not sure where the entry price level will be. The CTS (3rd gen, not second) is what the RWD STS was trying to be.
That’s good perspective, about the sociological changes between then and now. It’s true that while many of today’s vehicles (SUV’s or otherwise) get similar MPG to the subject car, and also that many often have just the driver in them, this Eldo doesn’t have any of the utility of a Tahoe or like vehicle. I guess my point is that despite all of that, the looks of the car – usability be damned – appeals to my emotional side, as does the styling of the new CT6, moreso than a few, more-recent Cadillacs. I liked the 2nd-gen CTS a lot – the new ATS seems to have a lot of its flavor.
It should be noted that I don’t dislike the CT6, I just don’t really understand the awe it’s inspired in many as it really just seems like a bigger CTS or ATS. I like that it’s finally a full sized flagship Caddie with a FR layout that will hopefully close the era of transverse engined warts in the lineup but it seems fairly status quo as far newer Cadillac designs are concerned, not any more brilliant than what’s already in the lineup which I do find a few emotionally appealing IMO.
These cars never fail to move me, in one way or another. They were really a bit of a shocker when they first appeared in the fall of 1966. Whoa!! Now that was something different and unexpected. Bill Mitchell’s hard edges and sheer look taken to the full extreme.
The problem was that Ford’s Continental Mark III, which came out in 1968, with its fake RR grille and Broughamtastic styling was much more to American’s taste, and really upstaged these Eldos. Also, the Eldo’s design had nowhere to go; it was very exciting at first, but after a couple of years, it started looking a bit affected and out of date.
That was the brilliance of Ford’s endless regurgitation of the Mark/Brougham look: it was so generic, like a MacMansion, that Americans just accepted that look as “generic luxury”, for decades. It made it easy for Ford’s design dept., but it sure got old.
Meanwhile, it put GM in a bind; the Eldo gen2 came off looking piggish, and eventually, GM had no choice but to move their design closer to the boxy Brougham look that Ford had been cranking out for so long.
But the original Eldo was a bright spot at the time, and it still is, even if it’s a bit over the top.
I was sort of thinking that the 79 Eldorado was better than the 67, but after looking at them in the CC cohort, I think the first gen Eldorado was best. However, of all the various E-bodies (Riviera, Toronado, Eldorado and perhaps the FWD Seville), I think the very best was the 63 Riviera (including the 64 & 65). The 79 Riviera I think was better than the others, but not quite what the 63 was.
The FWD Eldorado and the Continental Mark … were in hot competition.
It seemed to me that the Lincoln’s look went formal right about the time formal became the style. The Eldo’s look was less formal and more edgy. Much like the Avanti was critically acclaimed in 1963, but that the TBird and Riviera stole all the sales. I think each wears it’s respective style well, but they are definitely different styles.
Guys,
This is a 67 (wipers and front signal lights). “strato” bench seats were standard, but buckets were optional with console in black or sandalwood. Drum brakes standard, discs optional.
Glenn, thanks so much for the correction and identifiers. Much appreciated.
The ’68 also had hidden wipers and a rectangular outside mirror instead of round.
I never realized just how much the Eldorado styling influenced the ’71-’78 Toronado styling. My Mom’s 1972 Toronado certainly had a lot of stylilng cues from the Eldorado. The CC effect hit me last week, as I walked out of a local restaurant with my Mom and what was in the parking lot? A white 1972 Toronado. She looked at it and said, “I actually drove one of those? It is beautiful, but huge!!” It is amazing how large those cars are, especially after the downsizing craze of the late ’70’s and ’80’s.
Great pictures of a great looking car. The wheels have always perplexed me about these. Was there something about the FWD that made the wheel hubs stick out a little like a heavy duty truck? When I was young in the late seventies. you would see these parked missing hubcaps, and the wheels would look like the school bus wheels.
The wheels were designed to get some cooling air to those overworked drum brakes.
From a document about development of the Olds Toronado,
http://oldcarbrochures.org/New-Brochures—April/1966-GM-Engineering-Journal/1966-GM-Eng-Journal-Qtr2-09
“The reduced scrub radius (…) requirement for front wheel drive necessitated deep set drums and brake assemblies, which, in turn, dictated a high offset wheel.”
Was it something I said? My response about the wheels is gone. Please let me know if I said/did something to offend?
Hi, Tom – I didn’t delete your comment. I’m not sure what happened, my friend!
Tom: The picture you used was copyrighted, and its owner, Ate Up With Motor, who is extremely persnickety about such things, requested I take it down.
Do you remember where you copied it from?
Hi Paul, I’m so sorry about that. I got it from a Google search. I’ll be more careful next time.
My uncle Paul had one of these, likely a 1967. A successful doctor and surgeon based in New Hampshire since moving there from Quebec during the mid-1920s, he had owned a string of Packards and Cadillacs over many decades. I was about 14 when he visited us in Ottawa to show off his new Eldorado.
While we were accustomed to seeing him driving fancy cars, his Eldorado certainly made a lasting impression, captured photographically in the accompanying pics. Both pics were taken in front of our family home (off camera to the left), on separate occasions. In the first pic, I’m posing in front of the Eldo (looking oh-so dapper in my white socks and Hush-Puppies), while the second pic shows the proud owner.
A couple of things I remember about the Eldo was uncle Paul demonstrating how easy it was for the front-wheel drive Eldo to climb curbs – he would slowly approach the curb until the tires came to rest on the curb, then a quick tap of the accelerator was enough to climb the curb. The second thing I recall was my uncle disappearing for a couple of hours during his visit with us. Turns out it was a very hot and sticky day, and he had been enjoying a cigar in his air-conditioned Eldo!
Here’s the second pic:
Louis; I always love your old photos. Your house has become quite familiar to me. Keep them coming!
And these are great; love the triple-stripe white walls. That was a short-lived phenomena.
What fantastic memories and pictures. Your uncle’s car is exactly the type I would expect a successful doctor to drive. The white/black color combo works really well with the chrome accents. It must have been quite the sight to behold in person, especially when you were a kid.
I would like to second the love for triple stripe whitewall tires. They–and the similar double-stripes–have a special place in my heart second only to the mid 70s-early 80s semi-wide whites.
The Eldo’s FWD probably came into its’ own for him when/if he had to get to the hospital, stat, in midwinter.
I always thought this great design would have looked even better with shorter overhangs both front and rear. If I remember correctly this is the car the Brock Yates lambasted because it was a very expensive 125+mph car that had very weak drum brakes as standard. It probably would have cost Cadillac an extra $1.50 to put Corvette disks on it as standard, so of course the beancounters said no.
Now THAT is a Cadillac. I wish that GM could understand that their flagship brand was once so special precisely because it was meant to be a striking luxury car, clearly stating that the owner had made it, with no apologies. It had swagger and excellence and beauty, plus it was uniquely, wonderfully American.
I am so sad to see Cadillac trying to outdo BMW. I love BMWs, and will happily drive the real thing. I would drive a real Cadillac, but they don’t make those anymore. All they hawk today are oddly proportioned, angular cars (that still manage to look blobby/chunky) with Chevy motors and forgettable alphanumeric names, trying desperately to be something they are not. Oh, and they also peddle a glitzed-out Chevrolet SUV (at least it has a memorable name). With that lineup, why bother to venture outside of the German triumverate?
I get misty-eyed when I see the Elmiraj concept. They should build that car and call it an Eldorado. Make a sedan version and call it a Fleetwood. Trim it down a bit without losing the character and aim at the heart of the luxury market (not entry luxury–leave that to Buick) with a DeVille. Don’t worry about how it will be received in China and Europe–make it lust worthy and unabashedly American. That will sound the necessary note of authenticity that will make it resonate with luxury consumers the world over. Then, finally, they could get back to being the Cadillac that dreams are made of. Sadly, that’s a dream I don’t imagine will come true. All I’ve seen indicates more New York “edginess” boasting about statistics that don’t matter to the target audience (if you have to position yourself relative to competitors to explain who you are then you’ve already lost) with even more forgettable nomenclature. So sad, especially when you see a car like this 1967 Eldorado, when Cadillac made their position as king of the hill look effortless.
I think that my 2014 CTS is a much better Cadillac than my 2002 SLS was.
You’re correct. And mooning over these pretty, impractical cars from the 60’s is fun, but they cannot be replicated in today’s market. I’m 62 and and have driven German cars for the last 30 years. I now own Cadillacs. I like the way they look and drive. And I like not being one of the crowd where I live, full of what I now consider to be boring BMWs and Audis and glitzy M-Bs. Call me a rebel.
Too bad they didn’t make a convertible out of this series. I bet it would have been gorgeous. Maybe someone could photoshop one?
Beautiful Cadillac. No explanation needed. No equivalencies. No apologies. No questions. No acknowledgement that the competition even exists in its design.
It is too bad Cadillac can’t blow off the government, pay whatever fines, and build something like this today.
CT6 on the other hand is completely underwhelming. Looks just like the XTS stretched, and all too similar to the Audi A8. Sort of like putting the ’77-’81 Bonneville B next to the ’82-’86 Bonneville G. Except both uglier and worse proportioned. If they’d only add some overhang, I’d prefer the new Continental.
Save a dry martini for me.
There is nothing preventing Cadillac from building something like the old Eldorado, except Cadillac knows that it won’t sell enough to be profitable.
I am not sure what the CT6 will be as yet, except that it is a larger luxury sedan. The body has some sort of honeycomb under structure that gives it strength and lower weight. It is a new design.
That could be true, but I don’t think anyone here has any idea, unless you’ve done some kind of focus group study on the subject.
I assume that Cadillac has some idea of what the market is.
But a case in point is Ford’s retro Thunderbird. Ford was fairly sure it would sell. The first year it did sell, but then everyone who really wanted one had one. The last Eldorado’s were not selling either. I really liked the Riviera’s, particularly the 63-65 (which I never owned), but by 1990 I really found that 4 door sedans were more useful if not as stylish.
I think the New T-Bird is a straw man in this kind of analysis. It was hilariously overpriced for what it was, and it had a cheeseball, pedestrian interior. It was only an imitation of the car, nothing more.
First, on the most simplistic basis, no analysis whatsoever except looks kinda like old car so must be retro, I could counter you with the New (and New New) Beetles, the 2005 Mustang…depending on who designs it and what it’s got, retro for retro’s sake can sell…but that’s not what I’m advocating here….entropic to:
Secondly, and more importantly, I’m not calling for an exact copy of this Eldorado, but rather, something of similar dimensions, presence, and..oomph. In other words, something that is actually impressive, which I’m sorry, the XTS, CTS, and CT6, while they might be perfectly okay cars and much better than the Cadillacs of the 90s, are really not…except in entirely relativistic comparisons like that one and maybe some technological doo-dads inside that I bet the Germans have, too.
Finally, the T-Bird is a little different because the exact look and model itself were iconic to a whole generation, immortalized in American Graffiti. So it takes on a huge amount of symbolism for “men of a certain age” and can’t get past that because it can’t really translate. The same issue would, or will, result, if they tried to exactly reproduce the ’59 Cadillac. Both were kind of one-offs that have their little spot in history and then they’re gone, emblems of an exact moment in our past.
But the ’67 Eldorado doesn’t have that same “single model/moment resonance”. It’s every bit a Cadillac and an Eldorado but it hasn’t been pinned into a nostalgia movie like the old T-Bird, so it has room for people to say, “damn, now that’s a Cadillac”. It’s a big imposing American car, which you can say about EVERY Cadillac made from the V16s all the way through the introduction of the Seville, and arguably beyond that with the Brougham.
Not quite sure what you mean by oomph, but in terms of performance the FWD Eldorado’s were all slow compared to a current CTS (even the turbo 4).
In my opinion, for the “big imposing American car”, the RWD Eldorado from 1959 through about 1965 is really it. None of the FWD Eldorado’s were anything I really liked. The first Seville I did like, and then the 1992 Seville was good, but the Seville is not the big imposing car either. For really big, the 1971 through 1978 Fleetwood Broughams were best.
While there were a number of reasons for the T-bird’s failure, it still failed. The last of the gas powered Eldorado’s gradually failed too.
Noy sure how the CT6 will play out in this field, given that Cadillac has announced two flagship models above it (I think CT8 AND CT9). Let them take it where it goes, the badassery will come.
I know that the CT6 is not the high end (Mercedes S-class) car, but is more of a nice luxury sedan. Not seen a definite price tag, but speculation is $70,000. At that level it will not sell a large numbers unless that is a fully loaded price. I know Cadillac plans on a higher end model to compare with the S-class. Not sure or heard if they also plan on a Rolls class too.
Though the Eldorado became a pimpmobile joke in no time this shows the genius of these original concepts. To me it joins the 63 Riviera, the 66 Tornado in simply beautiful automobiles.
Lalo Schifrin records, 67 Eldo, great photography. Joseph it is such a pleasure having you around.
Is there a cornier album title than “There’s a Whole Lalo Schifrin Going on?” 🙂
I’m digging vodka martinis over gin martinis lately…is that OK?
Thanks, Don – I’m just glad to be on the team.
(Aaron, that album title is pretty bad. I hope I never approach that level with one of my CC titles. And vodka is completely okay!)
If this car was being produced today,I wonder if Cadillac would use that obnoxious hipster/So Ho commercial to plug it
I always thought the original FWD Eldorado was kind of a “buttaface” in a way… not that the face is actually ugly at all, but the booty is sooooo good looking and otherworldly that the rest of the car is a bit of a letdown:
A beautiful car but I never liked the blanked out fender cutouts on the ’67s.
Wow… I don’t recall ever paying attention to that detail. It looks unfinished, almost like the slightly “dumbed-down” the styling to keep buyers coming back for the ’68 model’s “correction”. I still say the ’67 looks smashing, but it clearly looks like it was designed for the fender-mounted turn signals.
” he opined that his subject car was “the kind of car that made America great and made people want to cross the big pond to get here. Nobody is coming here to drive a CTS.” ”
yeah, whatever. nobody wants to come to this country just because of a f***ing car. especially a choked, bloated joke like a 1976 Cadillac.
They didn’t know that yet. Give them ’til 1980 to figure that out. 🙂
Beautiful, cool car. Back when a Caddy was still a Caddy.
It’s not just that car designers don’t make cars that look this good anymore, it’s that there is so much working against them when it comes to a car’s looks, like fuel efficiency, safety, damn near everything having to have 4 doors because of car seats etc.
We really are, IMO, in a new kind of dark age for automotive design. Everything is so homogenized, all the edges have been taken off. You used to be able to tell different makes of cars apart, not so much anymore.
Cars are a lot more fuel efficient and safe, but everything is so damn bland.
Whatever criticisms there are to be made of the current Cadillac lineup versus this ’67 Eldorado could be made much more convincingly of the ’67 Eldorado versus the V12 and V16 Cadillacs of the 1930s.
I don’t get the meme that “cars are so bland, they all look alike” said like its something completely new to the current generation of automobile design. Look at a poster of 1939 car designs and try to pick out which is which from three feet away. You’ll pick out the Sharknose Graham – and we all know what a success that was.
Move up to, say 1949, and do the same test. Studebaker’s stick out, especially if you’re talking two years earlier. At the same time, the other car with a visual presence was a Kaiser. By the dreaming of the internet crowd, these should have been two of Detroit’s biggest success stories.
Yeah, the second half of the fifties gave cars an individual personality – and after a few years of said personality, the market was much happier to get back to nice, quiet, boredom. Case in point: 1962 Chevrolet, 1962 Ford, 1962 Plymouth. And the sales loser is . . . . . . . (hint: It’s my favorite car of the three).
And it just goes on and on thru the 70’s (big fat broughams from everybody, I dare a non-car person to differentiate between brands at ten feet) with only AMC showing real design risk with the Matador coupe and Pacer (such massive successes), the 80’s (the ones that stuck out were the cars that weren’t downsized on schedule because the manufacturer couldn’t afford to), etc.
And as for wanting that ’67 Eldorado back in production . . . . be careful what you wish for. Try driving one first, and discover what an ill-handling, ill-braked pig that car actually is. Cruise night at the local drive-in on Saturday night, fine. Do you really want to try living with that on a Monday morning rush hour?
I learned the above a long time ago, with my first car: my 1937 Buick Special 2-door sedan. The pre-war equivalent of a Cruize or Verano. That drove like a UPS truck, handled horribly, braked slowly – and I’m comparing it to dad’s ’68 Caprice at that time, much less something more modern.
Building those old classic cars again will only sell to the small group of car lovers who are really determined to believe that cars were better back then. Nobody else in their right mind would want to live with such a thing. So, we just need to bring back the presence? Better make sure that definition of “presence” will actually connect with the customers who are willing to open their wallets and pay for one.
Well, one of my cars is bigger than this Eldorado….Monday morning rush hour is not an issue as long as the tank is full. I’ll keep on enjoying not being in my right mind.
Personally I see no reason to have a Cadillac unless it is unapologetically American. An A8 or S Class is a better German sedan. “Discount German knockoff” is not something to which to aspire.
Now the Continental is making a try at this image again, if they’ll only get it out there.
I don’t think anyone wants these cars reproduced EXACTLY the same as they were back then. It is perfectly possible to build a thoroughly modern car on every level with the exact same styling as these Eldorados (or whatever one desires) though. Yes you don’t have the space efficiency, yes it sacrifices a massive 2-3 mpg at 100 mph and yes it will break the kneecaps of jaywalking oblivious pedestrians, but otherwise there’s nothing in this cars styling that would be detrimental to making it truly safe, truly good handling, truly fast and truly efficient by our modern standards.
And yeah those damn people who desire something different. Conformity is bliss.
Exactly.
To update the 1967 Eldorado to current standards would not be difficult, except for the drivetrain. Converting to RWD would not work too well as the front wheels should move forward, throwing off the look. Then a FWD transaxle would require moving the front wheels back, again messing up the style.
As far as fuel consumption goes, with the front fenders sticking out and making an air dam of the radiator intake area, the drag is going to be quite high.
I disagree regarding wheel placement, I suspect the amount of space necessary for a transverse FWD layout is available in the existing front overhang, you’d just have a bunch of dead space between the engine/cowl, in which case, who cares? It’s a Cadillac! RWD makes it even simpler because there’s never been any dictation that RWD must have the wheels as far ahead as possible, keep in mind the proportions of the FWD Eldorado and Toronado are IDENTICAL to the RWD Riviara. Weight distribution due to engine placement is a factor of course but this isn’t a Corvette, plus a super long wheelbase negates whatever intrinsic value a front-mid-engine arrangement has.
As for drag, as I said, this is a stylish Cadillac. Whatever few MPGs it costs at high speeds really is irrelevant. Not everything should have to match the aerodynamics of a Prius.
To make the project affordable, it would have to be adapted to a current platform (a truck platform for a body on frame version). This will impose some constraints depending on the platform.
RWD cars in the 60’s (at least for GM) had a lot of front overhang which is not exactly what is now done.
To make a new (old) Eldorado exactly like it was, would require building it just like it was – body on frame. Putting it on a modern platform would require some changes I think.
The 1998 Seville moved to a new platform and for some reason Cadillac decided to keep the basic style of the 92, but there were changes, and they were not necessarily for the better. While the 1998 Seville was not bad, I did not think it was better either.
Well I wasn’t putting in that much serious thought lol, but for the sake of argument, you’re correct, modern existing designs are very much anti-overhang and have the wheels pulled out as far to each corner as possible… BUT modern designs are a damn sight shorter too, and the wheelbase on a current XTS is 9″ shorter than a 67 Eldorado. Stretch the modern platform 9″ within the wheelbase ahead of the cowl and I’d bet you’d get tantalizingly close to the right footprint proportionally, and the front/rear overhangs are easy to tack on length, hence why it was so commonly done.
My main point though is IF GM were to build this from a totally blank slate, with only the 1967 proportions and styling dictating the hardpoints, it could be easily made modern. Is that feasible? No. Would it sell? No. What I’m countering is the styling of this car does not dictate an unsafe ill-handling, ill-braked pig. Mid-1960s technology is the only thing that dictated that on the original, aesthetics are just that, aesthetic.
Still waiting for evidence that it wouldn’t sell. And circular arguments like “I think GM would be making it already if it did sell” is not that evidence.
Maybe we should see if it would sell. Lincoln seems to be about to try this.
Well to make the exact same styling ->hardtop? implies meeting roll over standards. So at a minimum the A pillars will need beefing up, but the C-pillars can hide a lot of beefing up. Something similar could be made, but exact same probably not.
To me, this is the best-looking Cadillac design ever. Others have been good, even great, but this is near perfection for its time and still hits all the right notes nearly 50 years later. Bravo.
Was it something I said? My response about the wheels is gone. Please let me know if I said/did something to offend?
Hi, Tom – I didn’t delete your comment and don’t remember seeing it. I’m not sure what happened, my friend!
The picture you used was copyrighted, and its owner, Ate Up With Motor, who is extremely persnickety about such things, requested I take it down.
Do you remember where you copied it from?
Hi Paul, I’m so sorry about that. I got it from a Google search. I’ll be more careful next time.
99.999% of the time, that’s not an issue, especially when used in a comment. You managed to hit the extremely rare exception jackpot. If it’s from his website, or his flickr page, don’t copy it.
I’ve been doing this for almost 10 years, and only three times have I been asked to pull a picture, and never when used in a comment. What can I tell you…..
Thanks for the info Paul – much appreciated! (Too bad it wasn’t the Powerball jackpot that I hit LOL)
I love the impracticality of this car. The design never really took advantage of its FWD platform in terms of room/ergonomics, but it was so beautiful, who really cared?
Well they did have a totally flat floor, which is the primary packaging advantage to FWD for the end user. I’d wager this is more space efficient than virtually everything FWD with a standard center console built today.
My FWD 86 Buick Electra had a hump through the middle of the car, just like old RWDs. Not quite sure why, but I suspect that it had something to do with unibody design or they wanted to use that space for something.
But the Toronado & Eldo floor was flat.
The earlier comments about the classic original Eldorado getting flattened by the much more sedate, brougham-tastic Mark III remind me a lot of how the revolutionary Corvair got nailed handily by the thoroughly traditional (and boring) Falcon.
The ’67 Eldorado really isn’t my favorite GM personal luxury car, either (I think I’d rather go with the Riviera from the same time frame for a more overall cohesive design), but I can’t disparage anyone who does love the Caddy, particularly from that stunning rear perspective. It’s got one of the most beautifully styled rear-ends, ever.
I miss the styling of cars from the 1960’s and 1970’s before say 1975. There was something about the designer having the say about the look instead of handing him a box to design around and then it never looks right.
Considering how heavy today’s cars are, you’d think that they’d make them lighter with high strength steel and then allow the cars to grow a bit in size to get proportions right on the design.
Thankfully the new Mustang is not tethered to the current formula of packaging – it is one of the few cars that retains its proper proportion without also suffering from the smashed roof fiasco that is vogue at Total Recall Motors.
Absolutely to the Lalo Schifrin records!! Joe, you are like me…born in the wrong era. 🙂
Clarence, right! Exactly. 🙂
I’m with Jim Klein on this one – this is why people wanted to go to America. This car, and many others, says “optimism” to many.
Just in time to get drafted for Vietnam! It happened to quite a few new immigrants at the time.
It’s funny what could change in six years since I had originally posted this. That extra-dry martini may have been on my feel-good wishlist that day, but I’m happily 15 months sober as of yesterday. To feeling free to change / grow / outgrow / etc.
I stand by everything else and my original assessment that these are beautiful, desirable cars.
One of my favorites, though I prefer the ’68 with its fender-mounted turn signals and hidden wipers.
Never liked the dark patches on the ’67-8 hubcaps, but the next years’ were too bland.
The only defect in the body is that from most viewing angles, the front beak makes the hood’s actually level leading edge look like it’s mashed down in the middle. That should have been fixed in the clay. You don’t want people to think you’ve run into something.
Well, the fuel door flap in the trunk lid isn’t optimal either. Our ’68 Electra had it behind the plate, and some fuel would come out when driving after a fill up to the automatic cut off.