(first posted 4/10/2018) Both here at CC and at large, is there a GM car in history more crucified than — wait for it — the 1986-1991 Cadillac Eldorado and Seville?
I’m sure many of you have a different GM vehicle in mind for this title, and if so, please feel free to nominate one in the comments. As for the 1986-1991 Cadillac Eldorado coupe and its Seville sedan counterpart, no matter how you look at it, they are cars that can only be described as disappointing at best. Some may be quick to call them horrible, but I’d prefer labeling them as mediocre and disappointing because, in truth, they weren’t entirely horrible cars.
The problem was, the 1986-1991 Eldorados and Sevilles were in so many ways, shadows of their former selves, though I’d strongly argue that their immediate predecessors were no masterpieces either. This generation Seville has been covered significantly before here at CC, so let’s just focus on its two-door Eldorado brethren.
Starting with the obvious, the ninth generation Eldorado looked — and was — significantly smaller than its bulkier, statelier personal luxury coupe predecessor. Riding on an eight-inch shorter 108-inch wheelbase, the 1986 Eldorado was over fourteen inches shorter than the 1985. To make matters worse, the new Eldorado donned forgettable, uninspired 1980s boxy styling, making it blend in with many other cars on the road.
Not only did the Eldorado look generic, more specifically, it looked strikingly similar to many less prestigious GM cars. Historically, the Eldorado was positioned as Cadillac’s halo vehicle. For many years, it was a car purchased by some of the wealthiest GM buyers of all, and Cadillac certainly made no attempts to downplay the car’s prestige, making sure it was always adorned with distinctive, flamboyant styling.
We all like to say that it is what’s on the inside that counts, but the honest truth is that outward appearance is one of the most important factors in the choice of just about anything (or anyone) for 99.9% of people. The fact that the new Eldorado looked like almost any other GM coupe of the era was simply tragic for its appeal. To only make matters worse, what was on the inside wasn’t all that spectacular either.
Comprised of a dizzying mix of pod-like styling, excessively small buttons and digital readouts, trimmed in more traditional Cadillac accents such as casket-style door pulls, button-tufted leather, and oddly-placed wood trim.
Under the hood, the Eldo did rather shockingly retain V8 power. However, at the time of its launch, this was solely in the form of Cadillac’s HT-4100 4.1-liter V8, producing an anemic 130 horsepower. Torque was rated at a slightly better 200 lb-ft, identical to that found in the Toronado and Riviera’s smaller 3.8L V6, an engine that actually made 10-20 additional horsepower! Prestige was certainly eroding rather fast.
For once, I’ll spare the comparisons with European and Japanese luxury cars that were indeed better in nearly every aspect, and rapidly eating away at Cadillac’s market share — after all, there’s no sense beating a dead horse. I won’t however give the Eldorado a pass for its lack of competitiveness to what was truly its most direct comparison, the Lincoln Mark VII (which lost its “Continental” prefix for 1986).
Introduced two years prior, the Mark VII boasted highly distinctive styling that was sleek and contemporary, yet stately and formal, and full of character when compared to the Eldorado. It was also over a foot longer, boasted a tighter turning radius, and came with a significantly more powerful base engine, in addition to an immensely more powerful performance-oriented LSC model.
Traditionally, with its larger market share, Cadillac typically sold more vehicles overall and more Eldorados, than Lincoln and its Mark Series. That was still the case for most years of this generation Eldorado, but it was only the Eldorado that saw a decrease in sales from over 75,000 in 1985 to less than 22,000 in 1986. By comparison, Mark VII sales were actually up in 1986 a hair versus 1985 to just over 20,000.
Cadillac, quick to realize its many fatal mistakes, rushed a number of updates into the 1988 models. While at a short glance, the 1988 Eldorado looked no different from the 1986 or 1987, stylists did give the car an all-new hood and grille, sharper front and rear quarter panels, reshaped roofline and rear window treatment, and three-sided taillights, all in attempt to incorporate more prominent traditional Cadillac styling cues.
Mechanically, a new 4.5-liter V8 now was standard. Power was up to 155 horsepower and 240 lb-ft torque, though this still trailed the Mark VII’s 225 horsepower, 300 lb-ft torque from its standard 5.0L. In any event, Eldorado sales did increase some nearly 15,000 units over 1987 to 33,210 total. However, the Mark VII, despite no major updates, saw its sales increase by an even more dramatic amount in 1988, with 38,259 units sold, versus its 15,286 sold in 1987.
Cadillac would make further refinements and enhancements to the Eldorado on an annual basis, but the writing was already on the wall — the ninth-generation Eldorado would never come close to matching its predecessor’s success. While the car itself clearly had many shortcomings, much of this can be attributed to the dramatic mid-to-late-1980s shift in consumer tastes away from coupes in favor of sedans. Could these two have come hand in hand?
Nevertheless, Cadillac continued with small yet meaningful updates and enhancements to the Eldorado, the most significant being the standard addition of the new 4.9-liter V8 making 200 horsepower and 275 lb-ft torque in 1991, and the addition of the optional Eldorado Touring Coupe model in 1990. As the name would suggest, much like the similar Seville Touring Sedan, the Eldorado Touring Coupe was geared more toward the driving enthusiast.
Featuring a retuned firmer touring suspension, larger standard wheels, antilock brakes, the addition of a rear stabilizer bar, more thickly-bolstered seats, and less chrome exterior trim, the Eldorado Touring Coupe was hardly a true competitor to European personal luxury coupes or even the Lincoln Mark VII LSC, but more an Eldorado for Cadillac buyers preferring a tad more road feel.
Planned as a low-production edition from the start, Eldorado Touring Coupe sales were just 1,507 in 1990 and 2,249 in 1991, the last year of the ninth-generation Eldorado. Overall Eldorado sales continued declining, with 16,212 rolling out the doors in 1991. An unquestionably better, more substantial Eldorado would arrive in 1992, bringing with it an “ETC” Eldorado Touring Coupe, and though it would soldier on for a decade, the Eldorado’s impending demise was on the wall from the beginning. Could the ninth generation 1986-1991 Eldorado have been the final nail in the coffin?
Photographed: Rockland, Massachusetts – September 2017
While I still don’t like these cars and view them as the catalyst for Cadillac’s decline throughout the late 80s-early 2000s, I will give credit to GM where it’s due and at least give them a golf clap for attempting to improve it through its run. Offering much better engines, extending the length, offering a Touring Package, it was clear GM did do some damage control to try and salvage this car. I don’t know if it worked fully, but it was worth an effort. Regardless, I have little positive feelings towards this design, and I think the Toronado was at least a somewhat better effort (Though, only the 90-92 Trofeo models, and even then, they’re more guilty pleasures than anything for me.)
As for what GM car in history has been more crucified than this? Well, there’s plenty to choose from. But I would argue one car that never escaped the wrath of many an enthusiast, was easily the final generation Monte Carlo. What started out as a big player in the personal luxury coupe category before shifting gears to a pseudo muscle car, basically turned into little more than an uglier two door Impala. Lacking much in the way of performance or luxury aspirations, this was a car that frankly had no reason to exist, only kept alive by NASCAR tie ins and nameplate equity. Even though I’m not a fan of this car either, I think the Pontiac Grand Prix coupes did the Monte Carlo’s job better.
I’ve said elsewhere that I knew the MC was done when they gave it half a facelift. The Impala sedan got a full reskin outside and in for 2006, the Monte only got the new front clip and dash. The whole industry had been doing that with station wagons for decades, but wagons were bought for utility and coupes were supposed to be style leaders.
You raise a great point. Coupes were the style leaders, at least back in the day. Wagons were a utility counterpoint, sedans were the bread and butter saleswise, but Coupes were where you tried to shine. Plus, the coupe style would usually translate to the convertible edition, which almost does not sell any longer. Oddly, there has been a recent trend to make Coupe look sedans (the VW CC and Mercedes CLS come immediately to mind), but they sacrifice rear seat headroom for a slight style bump. The question now is whether there is enough style in a sedan to make buying a car versus a CUV/SUV worth it? Apparently not, based on sales figures.
+2
Very good point regarding coupes and wagons.
In today’s day and age, for most luxury brands it still is their coupe(s) that are the style leaders and halo cars, with their 4-door coupe models, if such are offered, playing a supporting role on that front.
For other brands, mostly mainstream, that do not offer a coupe or at least a non-compact coupe, it’s honestly their sedans that have become the style leaders (such as the Honda Accord sedan), while CUVs/SUVs have become the bread-and-butter vehicles of their lineups.
Yet another car that was (apparently) launched before it was really ready for it’s intended market. Yes, they kept improving it, but the 3 model year was about where it should have been at launch.
I can almost imagine the reaction at GM when the Lincoln Mk VII hit dealer showrooms….or maybe no one cared as it didn’t really impact the Eldorado’s sales if I read this correctly.
BTW, that interior, it looks like at least 6 or 7 different stylists with different ideas worked on it. The wood? So wrong on so many levels. And a set of digital instruments?
I’m not sure the market was there for such a generic-GM coupe with a bunch of half-baked Cadillac styling cues. Wonder what Cadillac dealers felt when the Mark VII hit the streets?
Digital was thought to be cool and high-tech in those days – never mind readability. It only had to function until trade-in time…..
I like that you clarified these aren’t horrible cars, just simply horribly misguided (if that’s much better!?). Handling was tidier than their predecessors while still retaining Cadillac ride. And… ummm… well pretty much everything else was a huge miscalculation. That interior had the same blocky, “modular” style as the by then quite old A/G-bodies. The HT-4100 was absolutely atrocious, being both unreliable and gutless. The styling was Roger Smith generic. Even if fuel prices had shot up and GM had been praised for its aggressive downsizing, the Eldorado probably still would have tanked. It was always an aspirational car but this new car was nothing to aspire to.
I could go on and on about how GM shot themselves in the foot in the 1980s. They tried so hard not to alienate their core clientele, design-wise, that they managed to alienate everybody while Ford, up against the ropes, shook up their designs to great success. The Eldorado was actually improved in many respects over its predecessor (handling, packaging, fuel economy) but it just completely missed the point.
That Lincoln may have used a humble Ford platform but it managed to meld heritage design cues with smooth, fresh aerodynamic design. Ultimately, this segment was about style. Nobody cared the Cadillac was more sensible than before when it looked like a Cutlass Calais. Many people probably didn’t care the Mark VII used the Fox platform, or even cared it was rear-wheel-drive. It had style. The Eldorado didn’t.
During this era GM seemed to alternate randomly between being asleep at the wheel or in panic mode. At the time I read Car and Driver for the sheer literary excellence of the magazine, not the subject matter. Reading about GM cars in those years, it seemed like someone in GM management was determined to kill the company.
I agree. GM made really good big rwd v8 cars thru the late 60’s, but panic struck after the Govt., first demanding cars be safer (adding much weight) and cleaner (reducing both mpg & HP), after the oil embargo, in 1975 then demanded that cars quickly get great mpg too. Rapid down-sizing began. Then came the second oil crises, GM saw $5.00 plus gas coming & staying, down-sizing went into full panic mode. Such forced, massive change, done so quickly resulted in miniature Eldos, Rivs & Toros (and Devilles, Electras, 98s) etc. all fwd and powered by weak engines and fragile transmissions.
Very much agreed. In this class, particularly among American car brand buyers, it came down to style – something totally underestimated by GM stylists.
I’ve read a lot about the development of these and their Deville counterparts. There was real concern that gas could reach five dollars a gallon in a short time. There was even a four cylinder powered proposal considered. Remember how Ford kept their big whoppers after GM downsized their big cars in 1977? Ford took a gamble and it paid off in the shot term. GM didn’t want to be caught with gas guzzlers. One of my co workers bought one of these to replace his ’80 model. He loved it and kept it for ten years. It’s apparent that stylists were used to using size as a way to differentiate the premium cars from the everyday fare.
This car a painful reminder of one of the absolute worst decisions GM ever made: selecting Irv Rybicki over Chuck Jordan to replace Bill Mitchell as the head of GM Design in 1977. So during a period of massive transition, when great design mattered more than ever to help customers embrace the new smaller cars, GM instead produced frumpy lookalike boxes from every division. Imagine how Jordan could have made these cars so much better (as he would do with the ’92 Eldorado/Seville). I’d guess the little fin-lets and crisper hood styling for ’88 were fast attempts from Jordan to improve the Eldo right when he was finally appointed as the design boss in 1986. But it was too little and way too late.
Dead on, GN. Chrysler’s 80s efforts all looked alike because they couldn’t afford better. GM had money to burn yet styled the cars as though they were all part of a single line instead of for 5 separate divisions. Worse, that styling worked on cars the size of the Cutlass Calais but did not scale up well at all.
And to make matters worse, this was about the same time period that GM suffered from what I refer to as “corporate ADHD,” by buying up all or part of other companies (Suzuki, Electronic Data Systems, Hughes, Lotus, Bugatti) instead of investing in better products. Oh, and let’s not forget the simultaneous investments in NUMMI and Saturn.
Yep, GM had money to burn at that time, and that’s exactly what they did. Burnt it to a crisp…
General Motors has never gotten its wandering hands on
Bugatti. The Lotus and Bugatti connection was due to the same man who invested in revived Bugatti and, through his investment company, bought the English company from General Motors.
Volkswagen AG acquired the Bugatti trademark in 1998.
You are indeed correct, and I’ll learn not to trust Wikipedia, especially before I’ve had my coffee.
Still, the point remains about the investment in other companies, versus product.
It wasn’t just GM. Ford bought Jaguar and Volvo, Lee Iaccoca’s Chrysler bought into Lamborghini and DeTomaso. By the late 80’s there was plenty of money for management to throw around. Either one of those companies really didn’t have the resources to throw around like that.
On the face of it, some of the purchases by GM, had they been properly managed, like EDS and Hughes, could have delivered huge benefits to the corp. Unfortunately, they did not remove or buy out folks like H. Ross Perot. At least in H. Ross’s case, he had a point. Roger Smith was an awful CEO and history has proven it repeatedly.
You would have been better off optioning the highest tier Calais with the V-6 and every bell and whistle in the Olds brochure. At least then you didn’t have the heavy Northstar 130 horse lump ruining your handling and well, everything else. I got my mother’s ’89 caddy with the northstar after she passed and I was so disappointed in the power. The malaise era 351 in my 76 Cougar was peppier
Yours was not a Northstar; the first cars to have that motor were the 1993 Allante / Eldorado / Seville cars.
Ah, so it was even denied the dignity of a cool name along with efficiency and horsepower. Thanks 🙂
Was the lump in my mother’s caddy the last low horsepower malaise era V-8 to be designed?
“Golf clap”…I love that image, very clever turn of phrase.
As for casket style door handles, I just looked in the selection room, and at least our casket handles have some bright trim, they’re not just tan plastic. I have to commend GM for the midstream updates they made on this car…the vestigial tailfins helped a bunch, but these cars simply had no presence. I can’t imagine pulling up at the country club and expecting anyone to be impressed.
+1 for “golf clap” – I’m reusing that one!
I actually prefer the style of the 1988 eldo to the one that came after it. the 86 not so much. these were nice looking and riding as well as decently handling cars. they are now for better or worse part of Cadillac history. also for those of us who dont like driving what everyone else is driving as well as standing out in a world of look a like cars and cuv’s,seeing one of these or same year seville is a breath of fresh air. as far as crucified GM…………..almost the entire decade of the 80′ and i’ll throw in the 90’s and early 2000’s as crapy motors corp. don’t get me wrong they put out quite a few memorable,collectible and highly sought after vehicles in those era’s. but for the most part……….they questioned our inteligence and killed our loyalty.
First, kudos on finding such a rare car. What I find most interesting is this one’s bipolar personality with the accessory grille and the trailer hitch – party up front, business out back.
The actual execution of this car is OK at best, which is an indictment on its own for a Cadillac. The concept was just a disaster. Why even offer Cadillacs if you are not willing to give your richest, most discerning customers something special. What is amazing is that they sold as many as they did.
I have to say, the original ’86-87 version isn’t bad looking, taken on its’ own. I wonder how it would’ve done if it (and its’ Toronado and Riviera contemporaries) had come along a year before, rather than after, the very similar but much cheaper N-body Calais/Skylark/Grand Am.
Great post, Brendan! I have nothing to add what others have already said outside of that seeing the contrasts (both visual and ability-wise) between the Eldorado and the really handsome Lincoln Mark VII was jarring. I wonder how often these two personal luxury cars were cross-shopped. I imagine devotees to either marque kept their loyalties there, more often than not.
I actually knew several Cadillac owners who defected to Lincoln in the 80s, although the ones I can think of (at least 3) traded RWD Devilles for Town Cars. I suspect that more than one Eldo customer traded on a Mark VII. I think Lincoln as the “other” American luxury car was a more acceptable substitute than anything from overseas for more than a few older Cadillac owners.
How many Lincoln Town Cars were “sold” by Cadillac ownership in the 1980’s?
Several former die hard Cadillac owners, friends of my parents, “defected” to Lincoln…..and never returned to the GM family.
Buick, a brand in which I have more interest than Cadillac, suffered equally with the contemporary Riviera. What has been written above about the Eldorado is similarly true for the Riv. Along with the mid ’70s cars, this was an disappointing era for Riviera – spectacularly corrected with the final mid ’90s run.
In one way, the Buick Riviera had it even worse than the Eldorado since it had the unloved and flaky novelty that was the Graphic Control Center.
The problem with cutting edge electronics: what looks high-tech to one generation looks like a crappy kid’s toy to their grandchildren! 🙂
A shrunken turd. My Dad had a used ’89 Seville, and it was also a POS.
Featuring a retuned firmer touring suspension, larger standard wheels, antilock brakes, the addition of a rear stabilizer bar, more thickly-bolstered seats, and less chrome exterior trim…
You forgot the export taillamps with separate amber turn signal indicators and brake signal as standard equipment for the Touring Coupe. The export taillamps don’t have the side retroreflective markers so the separate side running lamps are attached to the trim.
After Cimarron, ETC was second Cadillac with export taillamps for North American market.
I pass a field every day that has one of these cars complete with fake Rolls Royce grille and peeling fake convertible top. The day that they crush the last one in existence can’t come soon enough.
“Just make them look small, so buyers will think they get better MPG”, was order in 1979. And, they thought, if don’t like the looks, “where else will they go?”
This was a great encomium to what is still today a very unloved car. I assume you bagged this ETC at the Mini dealership where you work and that someone had recently traded it in. Well I certainly hope it finds a loving home, as any ETC from this generation is exceedingly rare, especially a ’91 in Polo Green. The ’91 with the 200hp 4.9 is definitely the one to have, as it’s about as quick as a contemporary Mark VII LSC.
Though the prevailing consensus then and now remains that this generation of Eldo was plagued from the beginning by numerous shortcomings, I do respect the overall intention which was to create a car encapsulating ‘traditional Cadillac values’ in a more nimble, manageable package. Of course by 1985, some genius on the 14th floor should have realized that this wasn’t what the market was demanding and that the general direction for personal coupes was headed in an entirely different trajectory. To again be perfectly fair, GM did appear to make a genuine effort to improve the car with the 1988 refresh, along with a succession of increasingly better powertrains. Like the Mark VII, power increased over 60% throughout the five year run, which undoubtedly transformed the character of the car. The ETC as it existed at the end of the model run was probably the car that should have been, building from the very beginning, again not dissimilar from how the Mark VII saga unfolded.
I don’t know that I can get onside with calling it better. I’ll go as far as “unquestionably less worse”, but that’s my final offer.
As for the name: Only the addled corporate mind of GM could have decided it was a good idea to release a car badged as the Cadillac Etc(etera).
I have always thought that the ETC(etera) was just about the dumbest nomenclature move ever, though Toyota Racing Division T(u)RD slathered on the side of trucks comes pretty close.
I always tell my cousin with a TRD Tacoma that I’m holding out for Toyota Ultra Racing Development.
Lol. Make sure toyota makes it in a choclate brown color….☺
Is it just the angle of the picture, or does the driving position look really uncomfortable, like one is basically sitting on the floor?
I don’t have to look any further than Cadillac itself to find two vehicles that should be more “crucified” – the Cimarron and Catera anyone?
And man, the triple black LSC was, and still is a great looking coupe. The metallic red with same black wheels was nice too.
This wasn’t the worst Cadillac by a long shot. How about that ugly 4 Dr. with the standard 5.7 diesel.
Peugeot 504 trunklid reversed? 🙂
Lol..yea those were ugly no matter what anybody did to them…
When this generation of Eldorado came out, my immediate reaction was “What the hell are they doing?” Nobody would want a Cadillac that looked like an N-Body Cutlass.
GM made money by the trainload in the 1970’s and by the time it was obvious they needed to get smaller, they ended up with cars designed by accountants. The 1980’s and 1990’s stuff put out by GM was, by and large, awful. It was like they didn’t even care about making a good car: all they cared about was it was as cheap as possible to make.
I was a GM service advisor in 2005. Their products at the time were awful. The 2006 Cobalt was the first decent car they made, and they are much better since, in my opinion.
Nicely written article! I have to admit I actually kind of like the 86 Toronado, style wise. I don’t care for the 86 Eldorado. What’s the difference? I’m not sure, I just know what I like.
I think it’s because the Toronado comes off as a bolder design. The Eldorado and Riviera seem safer and generic, with no styling payoff for the drastic downsize.
I like the 86 Toronado. I can understand why not many people wanted to pay twice the price of a Calais for a car that would be hard to tell apart 20 yards away.
from the rear angle it really does look like the Hunchback of Notre Dame.
I like it´s front though…
While the 1986 Eldorado looking like a Cutlass Calais was bad, it wasn’t as bad as the 1986 Riviera looking like the much cheaper Buick Somerset Regal 2-door. The whole 1986 GM PLC downsizing fiasco is definitely one of Roger Smith’s worst Deadly Sins and should go down as nearly as bad as the 1962 Chrysler downsizing..
I will say this, though. Looking at the photo of the Eldorado’s front bucket seats reminds me that they at least didn’t pull the trick of shortening the seat cushion bottoms to give the illusion of greater room by sacrificing lower thigh support, one of the worst examples of which was the ’80-’83 Chrysler Cordoba/imperial/Dodge Mirada.
Ironically, in the midst of all this GM fumbling, Buick introduced one of the prettiest full-sized luxury cars to wear a GM nameplate in years. Proof to the saying “even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.”
The one thing you don’t want to do in a segment where 80% of the sales come from style over practicality is eliminate the style, and that’s exactly what GM did.
The ’79-’85 model may not be a “masterpiece,” but man were those good looking for the time. So nicely proportioned.
A middle school teacher of mine had one (teacher’s never had fancy cars like that) and she drove me and a few other students home in it one day. It was an exciting experience and felt very upscale.
Then the ’86 came out and my reaction was BLEAH. A brand’s entire image wiped out in a kid’s mind.
The updated ones were better, but look at the roofline! The thick B pillar really cemented the “like a Calais” look. Compare it to the ’79-’85 roofline…it may not be to your taste, but it’s undeniably upscale. This one, not so much. In my opinion, this was the one worst feature and apparently couldn’t be economically addressed. One of the many reasons for the line’s eventual demise.
It was not any ways as ugly as a sedan or coupe DeVille of the same year. But still was too small and had iffy mechanicals. It’s nicer than the hideously ugly and unreliable cts, dts and ats cars they make now.
Brendan thank you for a good article on a pretty rare variant of the 9th gen Eldorado.
I was aware of the 1982-85 ETC’s existence but not this generation. About 10 years ago a friend went manic and started buying old (junk) cars in large numbers. Included in his hastily put together “collection” was a black 8th gen ETC. I was smitten by the car and expressed my interest in buying it . Some months later I asked him about the ETC and he said he had gotten in trouble with the county and had to dispose of all the cars. Most of the cars were junk but the ETC was not too bad. I’ve yet to see one on CL, at least not one in price range.
The 1986 Eldorado was actually quite restrained…no button tufted seats on either standard or Biarritz trims, black window and seat switches, black leather shifters with all interior colors and simple door pull straps. The base even had aluminum trim in place of the Biarritz’s walnut. Spring-loaded door pulls, button tufted seats, chrome switches and trim around the windshield and glossy birdseye maple trim on all models appeared later. As for the dash design, I see more than a passing resemblance to the ’81-’84 Datsun/Nissan 810/Maxima. When the ’88s got their power dome hood and slight tail lenghtening, this body certainly could have benefitted from a similar wheelbase stretch that the ’89 Devilles and Fleetwoods got as the back seats are cramped.
The Eldorado Touring Coupe also had a numerically higher final drive ratio (3.33 vs. 2.97 for all other Eldos) and combined with its relatively svelte 3300-ish lb curb weight made the ’91s quite snappy off the line. I’ve got a ’91 STS in the same Polo Green and these cars drive and handle better than people think. You’re aware of the mass hanging over the front end in turns but the ride is comfortably controlled without too much body roll and the steering has some surprising weight…this isn’t ‘one finger’ steering as found on the Deville.
I still like these little Eldorados and would love to put a 5.3 or 6.0 in one to drop down some power . They are not big ol boats and I had 1 I got for 700 bucks 14 years ago with 70k miles. Nice car other than the 4.5 engine sucked
I dont know how the value has gone up so much since then if they were crappilacs to say. Lol. I guess it comes down to personal choice. I just found another one for 1500 bucks mint shape from a guy that got it from his elderly fathers estate and is showroom condiction. They had there pros n cons.
4.5 did not suck (made 155hp then 180hp), the 4.1 did. 4.9 was better still, 1991 ETC 1/4 mile 15.9 sec., which was moving in 1991.
A car, especially a luxury car, should never look like a caricature of its former self.
It’s important to remember GM was forecasting gas prices well over $3 a gallon when this was in the planning stages. Had they been right, history would have been a lot kinder. The 20/20 hindsight game is easy to play, but if I’d been in GM’s predicament my solution would’ve been to sell what came out as the C body Coupe de Vile at the Eldorado but leave the Seville – which was initially released as a smaller car– as released. If there’d been demand for an even larger coupe, there was a a 2-door Fleetwood Brougham. Based on styling and interiors – clearly there was next to zero understanding why customers were headed to the European competition. My 87 Grand Am was closer to a BMW product than most of what Cadillac was selling at the time.
This car suffered from being controlled more by engineers, than by stylists. To an engineer, everything about the car is an improvement. Smaller, more efficient, the right amount of power – what did these Cadillac owners want? To the stylists, the answer was “style”, and that isn’t an engineering strength. To the GM executives, they just nodded their heads and let the over-engineered-designed Cadillac out to the public. It didn’t sell, worse, it lost 3/4th of its production from the year before.
With that, GM called in the stylists to save the cars, but you really couldn’t add style to a minimalist box without it looking obvious. Obvious isn’t classy. Cadillac went from not trying hard enough, to obviously hiding a mistake. The overall look of the car couldn’t be massaged. GM did this to their other high end offerings, the Riviera and the Toronado.
Cadillac lost its mojo during the 1980s and due to the changes in the industry and market, still doesn’t have a desirable look as it had 50 years earlier. When you have a Genesis looking more luxurious and substantial, with a fashion statement – over Cadillac, something isn’t working for Cadillac.
Owned this car from 1990…1991 ETC was a fabulous car. Owned for more than 12 years. So many negative reviews from people that didn’t own one. Would have kept it till today but a young teenager tboned it on a highway where my son walked away with his four friends.
the new Eldorado donned forgettable, uninspired 1980s boxy styling
The attempt to make it less boxy and more aerodynamic made it more forgettable. They’d have done better just to shorten the hood on the ’85.
Huh. Well, I liked the way they looked–all wheels and windows. And those great cast wheels . . . Kick ’em when they’re down, but give credit where it’s due ?
Mostly have always bought autos that are a little unique looking, not for a name brand or because they are more expensive. My influence starting in the 1950s, I grew up in the backseat of larger 2-door hardtops and convertibles. My family never owned a 4-door sedan. and that is just my experience.
I think GM made a mistake with this generation of Eldorado’s by designing an auto that was too generic looking at its price point. Not a bad car but certainly not a “unique in all the world” car for the upcharge you paid for the Cadillac name.
I am not the best source of historical automotive hindsight when it comes to the 1980s and early 90s. During that period I mostly lived in Manhattan, with less than two mistaken career years in Philadelphia. While in Philly still had my 1976 Eldo conv., but my partner needed personal transportation. Partner, a documented genius, was a terrible driver. So one afternoon, after too many brunch screwdrivers, it was time to buy a second smaller car. Dodge was having a sale! Went to the dealership and bought a new 1986 Dodge Colt 2-door hatch only because it was small and I liked the color. But it was a 3-speed on the floor so I had to teach him how to shift. Yes, genius IQ, a challenge for him to lean the shift pattern. I loved that little 1986 Colt 2-door hatch. and keep it for 100,000 miles, long after I sold my Eldo and moved back to NYC.
Fast foreword, after moving back to NYC with my Colt, first mid-life crisis. Go to grad school in VA. I am now middle-age, but Dad thought I needed a new car. So before grad school started I was visiting my Dad In NC. It was Thanksgiving weekend, watching a football game on TV, at halftime he said “lets go for a drive”. Ok…we drove to a Hyundai dealership. I was told to pick a car. I picked a new teal green 1993 Hyundai Excel 2-door hatch, fully loaded with auto trans. Back home before football half-time ended. I loved that car until I traded it for a white/silver 1996 Sebring LXI.
I know this is a long story but I will finish with this. IMO, people tend to buy what is on a dealers lot, buy what is quickly available. Dealers tend to stock autos on their lots with the most profit like CUVs/SUVs. It is also cheaper for manufactures to offer fewer exterior/interior color choices. Are these the only choices of body styles, colors, etc. the public wants, or is it only the choices we have if you want a new auto?
Now that Baby Boomers have raised their kids, why do we only have choices of boring 4-door sedans?
Bill Mitchell should have stayed on for the next round of downsizing. The ’77 full sizers and ’78 intermediates were heavily influenced by a Pininfarina Jaguar prototype that was never produced. Mitchell would have had few qualms about going back to the Pininfarina well for inspiration. For the ’92 Eldo redesign, GM did just that, setting up a competition between Pininfarina and the in-house stylists. The Detroit design won out, but it suspiciously looks a lot like the Pininfarina design, only more bloated- like a Hudson step-down.