(first posted here on 7/14/2015) What words shall we use to describe this 1978 Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz Classic Coupe? (actually, it might be a 1978 Cadillac Eldorado Custom Classic Biarritz Coupe). Maybe we don’t need any more words at all; the name pretty much says it all. But let’s throw a few at it and see if they stick: faded glory, wretched excess, the last big Eldorado, the perfect symbol of the seventies, the Bizarritz, a bloated horror, a handsome classic; we could go on all day (and I invite you to add your own to the list). Or we could just look at it in wonder (horror?), this vivid reminder of just how far we’ve come since the decade when this Eldorado roamed this land, proud and unfettered.
Well, maybe proud, but not exactly unfettered. When the new 1971 Eldorado first burst forth from its Brontosaurus sized egg, it proudly proclaimed the title of the biggest engine ever in a post-war car. A nice round 500 cubic inches (8.2 liters) cranked out some 365 (gross) horsepower and about as much torque as a ship’s prime mover. Somehow, the Eldorado’s engine stumbled through energy crisis one without giving up a precious cubic inch, but in 1977, it lost the title. The big Caddy V8 started out in 1968 with 472 cubic inches and was designed to potentially grow up to some 600 cubes in the expansive mood and outlook of the times. For 1977 and 1978 it now was 425 cubic inches and 195 (net) horsepower, but this wasn’t the last stop in the gelding process. In any case, Cadillac had long stopped making a big deal about the Eldo’s FWD, and who knows how many of its drivers even knew?
Perhaps Caddy waited until 1977 because they wanted the last convertible Eldorado in 1976 to bow out in 8.2 liter style. That caused quite a sensation and a run on them, having been dubbed the last American convertible ever due to proposed roll-over restrictions that were later rescinded.
So to throw a little interest in the coupe after the passing of the rag top, the Biarritz, and its Custom and Classic variants were deployed in that Super-Fly era of Eldorado customs.
The wretched excess and tastelessness of the seventies custom era were all the classic signs that this era of giant personal coupes was already morbid, and due to be resigned to the schlock and kitsch chapters of automotive history. I doubt Cadillac envisioned that when the dramatic 1967 FWD Eldorado first appeared in its knife-edged glory. Trying to recapture the exclusive and true luxury of earlier coupes, like the 1956 Continental, the Eldo arrived at a critical time for Cadillac and Americans. Incomes were up, taxes were lower, as were Caddy prices. Whereas the failed Continental coupe was truly exclusive, the Eldorado ushered in the era of affordable non-exclusivity. And in doing so, it sowed the seeds of the ultimate destruction of the genre.
Lincoln’s down-scale but up-sized Mark III of 1969 managed to capture the public’s frenzy for long-hood luxo-coupes even more definitively, and outsold the Eldorado by healthy margins during their heyday. The ’67 Eldorado’s styling was still trying to be a bit “interesting”; the Mark III was just a blatant land-grab for the biggest hood and most pretentious grille. Not surprisingly, that was the formula for success.
The 1971-1978 Eldorado was not a particularly handsome beast, foreshadowing Americans’ battle with love handles. Lincoln’s Marks stayed with the angular ultra-long hood theme, and steam-rolled the pudgy Eldo. The Eldorado wasn’t an inspiring car to drive either; which probably won’t come as a surprise to those whose lives might feel incomplete for not having had wheel time behind one of these. Use your imagination, and you’ll have the experience down perfectly: billowing, narcoleptic, floating, swimming, drowning, slewing, sloshing; you Eldo drivers feel free to add more to the list.
Obviously, the plastic material Cadillac used to fill the gaps between the steel fenders and the bumper end caps was not a long-lived substance. I see Caddys of this vintage and into the eighties with these charming gaps everywhere. And that’s in western Oregon, one of the most benign climates for solar damage. I find them to be a fitting symbol of the decay of America’s big luxury cars, when cheap plastics were massively employed for all sorts of fraudulent roles inside and out. You won’t see this happening to a 1978 Mercedes. Live and learn. Perhaps I should have called this one a GM Deadly Sin?
Postscript: I was able to muster a significantly more positive tone in my CC on a pristine ’72 Eldorado convertible here.
You clearly want to hate it- or do- and as one who prefers efficiency and economy to wretched excess, I should hate it too but for some reason I don’t. That the Average Duhmerican chooses 6,000 lb V8 4x4s for daily solo commuting makes these old boats look almost svelte in comparison.
Sending chills down my spine.
What exactly was the targeted demographic for such cars? In a time without parking pilot sensors?
The bladed fenders front and rear made the admittedly far away corners easy to see while parking.
I’m not a demographer, but from what I can surmise, cars like this were aimed at people who “made it” & wanted everyone to know. Maybe it’s ultimately due to emotional insecurity in a volatile culture; anyhow, this mentality is still with us, only now they use luxury trucks & SUVs to make such statements. Benzes & BMWs used to be an enthusiast niche, now they’re also mainstream status symbols.
America’s liberal vehicle & fuel tax regime enables all this. The CAFE standard which extirpated the RWD Yank Tank is an end-run around raising the 18¢/gal Federal fuel tax, which would be political suicide.
One other factor was the separate CAFE standards for cars and trucks, which discouraged selling land-yacht sedans and wagons and encouraged SUVs as a car replacement for anyone who needed room or towing capacity. Pickups, vans, and SUVs/crossovers went from 15% of the market when CAFE went into effect to over 50% by the ’00s.
I would say primarily two target demos: older folks who had worked hard and always yearned after a Cadillac in their younger days, and after the kids were gone, could afford one (or two). These folks generally still had an anti-import bias, and were largely oblivious as to the changing tastes in the luxury car market.
The other group was folks from lower-income background who had suddenly come into some money, legitimately or not. Think drug dealers and such…the same kind of demo that later became enamored of the Escalade. They had/have a great need to shout “I can afford this!”
Look wise, it was neither deadly or sin. It was a pretty good looking car, although I don’t get the merit of being FWD for a car of this nature. I remember dreaming of owning one in the ’70s just to be the king of personal luxury. GM produced enough of them to make decent $$.
It was toooooo big, even back in the days. If only Caddy made it 6% shorter and narrower but keep the same height. So it could be 210″ long instead of 224″ and 75″ wide instead of 79.8″. Just for comparison, the new W222: 206.5″ long and 74.8″ wide. Curve wise, I think the shrank Eldo triumphs the big new S class.
If you want a then-midsized convertible, why don’t you just say so?
Paul, I was just thinking about this article the other day! It was one of the first of your articles that I read and it got me hooked… I’m glad these are being ported over from the other site!
I’m a Cadillac man but I just cannot get into these… Maybe if they were 8/10ths the size, I’d like them more. I feel like the Lincoln Mark coupes of the era, particularly the Mark V, are more stylish and bold and ostentatious. I think it’s the lumpy haunches of the Eldo that kill it for me, that and the fact it just feels like too much car. The Mark V is just as gargantuan but it just looks cooler.
Give me a ’77 Coupe de Ville, or a ’75 Seville. Not one of these.
the 8th gen Eldo was 90% of 7th gen length and width wise. Your 8/10th would be 179″ long, even smaller than the 9th gen which was 191″. In fact 179″ would be about the same length as the current Civic.
’15 Escalade: 204″l x 80.5″w x 74.4″h; 5840 lb curb weight; 15/21 mpg.
Yeah, it has quite a few more seats but does that matter if they’re always empty? In reality (largely solo use) the Escapade is a personal luxury car… truck… boat too.
My “8/10ths” was just a random measurement. And I didn’t much care for the styling of the ’86 downsized Eldo either.
They were just of the era. You can see for example on 80 Tbird, or 80 Continental Mark VI what shrinking the same style of car looks like. It just doesn’t work.
It reminds me of Elvis when he got fat and wore jumpsuits or a boxer who should have retired a long time ago.A bad time for American cars.
bad time for Elvis too 😉
Yep, 70’s Elvis was not a good sight. His outdated music also had no place in the funky disco era, either.
Sounds pretty good now.
+1 right at the end he was a pitiful sight, but 68-74 was a golden period for the King. There’s an old double album compilation called ‘Elvis in the 70s’ and the list of great songs is astonishing: American Trilogy, Burning Love, Never Been to Spain, Help Me Make it Through The Night, Snowbird and that’s not even including his 1969 sessions with Chips Moman’s crew in Memphis; Suspicious Minds, In the Ghetto, Kentucky Rain, Any Day Now, Only The Strong Survive and more.
He may have looked as bloated as this Caddy at the end of his life, but except for the last couple of years, he was still at the top of his performing ability.
You´re right Don.
Some music critics say, that it was actually long after his commercial peak that Elvis recorded some of his best music. Unfortunately he was no longer relevant enough to be played on radio and score big hits.
Perfect comparisons, Gem.
“It reminds me of Elvis when he got fat and wore jumpsuits or a boxer”
Elvis went commando! (when he wasn’t wearing a girdle)
At least, these 1971-78 Eldorados, especially in convertible guise, command collector car dollars, $12,500-25,000 sometimes for a minter… With very, very low miles of course.
I doubt your best loved “grandma bingo transport” 1977-79 B-body can even bring $5000, on a good day.
Why so much hate for this car, Paul? It was in fashion for the times. Yes, by 77, the design was long in the tooth, but look at the 1991-94 Buick Roadmaster… Now, THAT was a car who was outta place in the more fuel efficient, lean 90’s.
“Fuel efficient, lean ’90s”? The ’80s were when American cars lost lots of mass and volume and made huge gains in powertrain efficiency via EFI, FWD, and in automatics locking converters and overdrives; by the time the ’90s rolled around people were ditching cars en masse in favor of pickups and SUVs. So yeah the CARS were leaner while the FLEET was anything but.
The 90’s were more the “minivan transitioning into the SUV era”. You may be right, about the latter part of the 90’s. The SUV era was in full swing by 2000-02
The early part of the 90’s had an abundance of fuel efficient cars like the Geo Metro, Honda CRX, Nissan Micra, Mazda 323, Ford Aspire, Mercury Tracer, etc… Let’s say around 1990-1993 or so.
So you think the 1991 Roadmaster came at the right time?
I don’t think the Roadmaster “came” so much as it had already been there for decades. Perhaps it just didn’t leave soon enough… in it’s big V8 rwd form anyway.
Here in fly-over country the 4×4 craze was in full swing by the early ’90s. Explorers, Blazers, Suburbans, and pickups outnumbered all else.
Frank, the 4×4 craze is huge in the Northeast… So many mofos with 5in + lift kits and those annoying smoke stacks, and smokescreens.
Gotta love those “Rolling Coal” stickers, too. Lol
Of course, with the beluga whales from Nissan, Toyota and Kia, plus the high horsepower of cars, today… The Roadmaster would fit right in, nowadays.
Ya know, I miss cars like the Roadmaster, Town Car, and Grand Marquis. 🙁
“So you think the 1991 Roadmaster came at the right time?”
Depends on what you mean by this question:
If you are asking if the Roady came out at a good time in regards to gas prices:
Then yes it did come out at a good time as gas prices were low and the 5.7l engine under the hood offered pretty good fuel economy for the weight of the car. It was also fuel injected.
Now if you are asking about if the car came out at the right time as far as dominating sales over competitor car makers:
Then perhaps not
By 1991, the mini van had taken over wagon duties (for those that wanted a van that you could tow with, the Astro/Safari and Aerostar were available) so in relation to wagons as being the predominate people carrier, the writing was on the wall.
Now as for the Roadmaster Sedan, it came out in 1992(a year after the Roadmaster SW) and seemed like a bit of an afterthought due to the 1 year delay in arriving. By 1992 the SUV craze had started thanks to the 1991 Explorer and folks were dumping sedans and wagons to join the ranks of SUV ownership.
It is like what happened in the music scene around the same time. In 1990/1991 hair metal(aka Winger/Warrant etc) dominated the charts and sales. In 1991 Nirvana released their album Nevermind and overnight the musical tastes went from hair metal to grunge/alternative and by 1992 there were no hairmetal bands on the charts.
Plus in Buick’s case they had the fullsize Lesabre and Park Avenue on offer also so the Roadmaster had competition inside Buick as well as with SUVs. Unlike Cadillac’s clientele who shunned the shrunken FWD Cadillac’s on offer starting in 1985, Buick customers loved the 1985-90 Electra/Park Avenue and 1986-1991 Lesabre and carried on that love to the 92-99 Lesabre and 91-96 Buick Park Avenue so there was no need for a “traditional” big RWD car at Buick any longer.
“The early part of the 90’s had an abundance of fuel efficient cars like the Geo Metro, Honda CRX, Nissan Micra, Mazda 323, Ford Aspire, Mercury Tracer, etc… Let’s say around 1990-1993 or so. ”
You are correct in that there were a lot of fuel efficient cars out in this time period. But since gas prices were pretty low around the same time, not many folks were buying them for gas mileage. Most of these cars were bought on the basis of price. Credit was not as widely available during that time as it was in the 2000’s and what credit was available came with high APR and terms attached that shut the door on a lot of folks. These small cars were pretty much the only new cars that a lot of folks could afford(or in the case of the Aspire, could get financing for as Ford was giving generous financing terms on the Aspire) so that is why they were bought and not for gas saving purposes
Park Avenue and LeSabre’s 3.8 V6 doesn’t sound nor feel premium enough, and Roadmaster has a more premium feeling.
Except the Roadmaster, even with the LT1, had commendable fuel economy: 17/25mpg. That and considerable towing ability. And interior space. The market was shifting from full-size sedans but embracing even less efficient SUVs
My Custom Cruiser with the 3.23 final drive ratio is lucky to see 23 on the freeway, but at least it looks nice.
That 25 per gallon for the Roadmaster seems a lil inflated. My 85 Regal, with the 231 V6, probably doesn’t even get that.
At least, I don’t think it does. Never really measured to find out.
I think 18/23 might be the norm for a V8 Roadmaster.
What transmission does your Regal have?
I dunno, Jordan.
It’s an automatic, not sure of the model. I guess, it’s the standard, “across the board” auto tranny Buick used on it’s regular V6 cars.
I’m, also, wondering if it’s a 4 speed automatic, too.
Well, if it’s a three speed, it’ll say PRND21, and if it’s a four speed, it’ll say PRN(D)D21.
More than likely, it’s the 3 speed, from what you’ve described.
Which was kind of archaic, since some manufacturers started using 4/5 speed automatics in the 80’s.
Funny, how my 81 Chevy Malibu Classic coupe has the exact same drivetrain as my Regal… and they both need brake lines from sitting. Stupid 80’s GMs. 🙁
It depends, as V8 Mark VIII can achieve 27MPG on hwy at 76mph, but I consider it’s for the low drag and overdrive. Roadmaster should get 24 at slightly lower speed.
While my ’78 Volare returns 24 on hwy at 55mph.
My 86 Electra T-type would get about 28 MPG on the highway. My current CTS with AWD does not do quite that well, but can get around 27 MPG @70 MPH, 29-30@60 MPH. Overall see this link
I dunno. My partner DD’d a ’97 Town Car for a couple of years. That thing would do 25 mpg at 75 miles per hour with the air con shooting snowflakes out the dash all day long. Funny that, since the air con dying at 238,000 is what convinced him that it was time for a new car.
So I can fully believe a Roadmaster would do 25 if it were just putzing along on the freeway at 75.
“it was in fashion for the times” For many of us, it was grossly out of fashion at the time. Depends where you lived and what you thought was fashionable.
Current values have nothing to do with my feelings about cars. I’m not a buyer/seller.
“For many of us”
It depends on your definition of many.
But from the option list in late ’70s, vinyl roof delete being a no cost option on most Chrysler cars should say something ( I do wish more people chose though to avoid the rust issue )
“For many of us”
It depends on your definition of many.
But from the option list in late ’70s, vinyl roof delete being a no cost option on most Chrysler cars should say something ( I do wish more people chose though to avoid the rust issue ) and apart from exotic sports cars, not many cars above intermediate size look acceptable without white wall tires.
GM cars of the mid-late 70s with their HUGE bumpers are 1 of the few reasons I’m glad C.A.F.E. came about.
In 1973 (or thereabouts) Car&Driver took GM to task for producing such a large car with the 73 or 74 Chevy Impala/Caprice. The magazine hypothesized that at the rate GM was going, an Impala/Caprice would soon rival a tractor-trailer in size. For some reason, they didn’t point out that Cadillac was selling even larger cars.
As a “personal” luxury car, this car is ridiculous. When the Eldorado was finally phased out, the last car had a wheelbase 18 inches shorter and weighed just over 1,000 less than this car. Heck, this car was bigger than a “Panther” Crown Vic/Grand Marquis.
what exactly is the meaning of a “personal” luxury car?
Was there ever a luxury car for general, mass transportation?
Yes, the W126 S-class Mercedes AMG Hammer. The drug villains used to roll 5-6 deep on Miami Vice. 🙂
is Sarcasmo being sarcastic? Nothing can tarnish the mighty W126, sir!
No, true story.
The W126 in AMG attire is to me the BEST looking luxury sedan, along with the Aston Martin Lagonda.
Love both of those luxury sedans. 🙂
I guess it must mean a stylish coupe as opposed to a more formal four door sedan, a car to make a statement like “you`ve arrived”-or something of that nature.
It means you care more about style than the space or ease of back-seat passengers or potentially trunk space. It also implies that you are loaded enough to have another car to handle all those mundane chores.
Exactly. I’ve never understood why anyone would combine utilitarian things with a luxury car. A sedan is about as “practical” as I’d ever go with luxury.
American marketing run amok. Silly term for a silly type of car.
As is “Sport Utility Vehicle”.
Exactly!! Reality check.
+ 1 Dweezil
+2 Dweezil
MonzaMan: I think the “personal” meant 2 doors with tight back seats, implying no ankle-biters to haul around, therefore sexual availability. The Mustang “said” the same thing, but as a cheaper sporty model.
Now the Coupe deVille was also on hand, but as its rear was roomy enough for adults, it still risked being perceived as a family car.
yeah, Neil…thats what I thought as well.
In that context the term “personal” probably means, that its a car that just caters to my personal, egotistical needs and my own comfort, and not those of an entire family consisting of Ma, Pa, auntie, kiddies, dogs etc.
It’s more of a term of lifestyle car. A two door coupe usually based on reasonable priced models sometimes with more powerful engine and heavily emphasized on comfort and visual styling inside out, and it’s most commonly used by single persons ( or couples without children, children not around )
Although these and the Lincoln Continental Mark IV and V were similar sized, the Marks looks far leaner and meaner. I don’t know if I’d go so far as to call this a Deadly Sin, but as equally inefficient as the Mark V was, at least Lincoln made it look better inside and out.
If it’s not to your taste don’t buy one. Why push one out of a junkyard 30 + years after it’ s manufacture as if that was some sort of proof of it’s quality. The classic design motifes are wretchedly excessive. Well maybe not to Paul’s taste. So of course it is wretchedly excessive to waste the time designing it, Their time would be better spent designing something Paul would like. You must have had years of seat time to come up with that many adjectives to describe driving it.
Paul yesterday everyone was very nice about a car that was important to you. It would have been easy to attack the car’s economy roots. tiny engine, or lack of creature comforts. It is argueable whether any of those are good arguments. Instead we admired the pictures and the commentary on why it was great. We also enjoyed feeling your excitement.
There were then and are now fans of the 78 Eldo. They are excited to see one. A lot of the many survivors are put away or sent to Europe. They know there will never again be anything like it. I am glad you don’t write reviews like this any more.
This site is not really about showing love and respect for all makes and models—the articles here are more editorial than factual and all of the authors liberally apply their opinions and impressions to the articles. That is really the nature of this web-site and what makes the readers come back.
There are fans of every make/model out there somewhere–that doesn’t make those cars good vehicles in the full historical context. I recall a post on here dishing the Ford Tempo and, against all odds, there was a Tempo super-fan that came out to defend them vehemently. I found the article and his rebuttal both interesting.
I’d punt this one into the deadly sin camp. By the time this beast was built, it was already seen as outdated. Sharing the showrooms with the newly downsized DeVille/Fleetwood and Seville made this car look baroque and past its prime, but GM just had to keep minting the money.
There is a very interesting series of studio shots of full-size clays for the 1977 Olds and Buicks posted on Dean’s Garage. I assume the pictures are from the mid-1970s, and most of the designs are pretty close to what was produced. However, there were E-body concepts, with shots for both a stillborn Toronado and Riviera. I think the Riviera concept even has a Cadillac Eldorado vibe from the front. I am sure GM had developed E-body concepts for the Eldorado then too–I wonder if they would have been a step in the right direction, even on a temporary basis, until the newest FWD E-bodies arrived for ’79.
The main reason I think this car is a sin, aside from being way past its “sell by” date, is that it really cemented the notion that the way to make a car a Cadillac was to simply make it really tacky. Crossing this line set the tone for the brand going forward, and was in stark contrast to where the mindset of high-end customers was rapidly evolving. Vestiges of this philosophy still thrive today in the Escalade, which many still view as the only “real” Cadillac left. Very sad that such a vulgar, overpriced rehash of GM hardware is seen by many as the standard for this once great brand, and I lay that travesty at this Eldorado’s feet.
I like THAT car.
Looks like a G body Buick Regal with the nose of a 79-83 Mercury Grand Marquis. 🙂
I had a friend who owned one of these in brown. He told me he thought Biarritz was “Spanish for schmuck.”
I remember being in the backseat of my older brother’s 73 Dodge Dart coupe on a road trip, my parents had a Mercedes that was in the shop and his was the only car available to take. My father complained the whole way about the car. On the way to wherever we were going, a new blue 78 Eldorado, just like the one in the article passed us on the highway. The Dodge could hardly make it up the hill with it’s slant six, but boy did that Cadillac pass us with ease….I remember thinking, I wish I was sitting in that car rather than the Dodge…lol…love these.
Uh, you’re not one of Al Bundy’s kids, are you? Lol
I was that day!! 🙂
I can relate, Leslie… My dad had a 1971 Dodge Dart Swinger coupe, gold with black vinyl top.
I didn’t ever feel like Bud Bundy, that car to me was awesome… Until, we traded it in, in 1979, on one of the Pentastar’s NEW fwd offerings… A 79 Omni 024.
The 024 was a wannabe sports coupe, it was “tortoise up a steep hill” slow… Offering the same crap engine as the economy Omni 4 door sedan.
Then, I felt like Jon Lovitz’s “Liar” guy. 🙂
Yup, that’s how I felt. That Dart had two adults and three kids and a trunk full of luggage. It didn’t take much for the Cadillac to pull ahead…but it looked pretty good going by as fast as it did!
Yes, several weeks ago I was driving my Volare ( with slant six ) in Vassar, Mi at night ( so I didn’t use AC then ) and it was traveling merely at 15mph uphill.
This seems to be one of those cars that you either love or hate-no middle ground accepted. Sure its big,bloated, underpowered,and Brough-hammy to the nines,but thats what these cars were all about. Remember Woody Allen driving the rental Eldo convertible in “Annie Hall”? Cadillac would introduce a “downsized” Eldo in `79, so I guess they just wanted to go out with a bang with this one.If that was the case,they suceeded. However, this still is a real Cadillac, not the brand that exists today.
Count me in the haters camp on these. This car was just Cadillac being Cadillac. This car was to the 70s what the 1959 model was to the 50s – nothing succeeds like excess.
I can respect the powertrains on these cars, as the Cadillac V8 and the THM400 (even in fwd form) were as good as things could get. But everything else was a fail. The car had been fairly clean in its earlier versions (1971-73). I wonder if the over-the-top gingerbread slathered all over this car was the Cadillac version of panic – I don’t think a Lincoln anything had ever outsold a Cadillac anything until the Mark III came along. But the Cadillac was an also-ran in this segment. Even the most excessively decorated Mark IV was a model of elegance and restraint up next to one of these, and the 77-78 Mark V was like Audrey Hepburn next to Cadillac’s Bette Midler.
As much as I love big land barges, I didn’t like these cars in 1977, and they have not grown on me in the intervening years like the 71-76 C body Cads have started to (a teeny little bit). Damn, but that last sentence was embarrassing and really hard to write. 🙂
All of you young haters can keep on hating and the older ones remember these fine cars, Eldo and Mk alike, and were envious then and now!
I don’t think you can call the ’71-’78 Eldorado a Deadly Sin. As is common in GM cars that became long in the tooth, the only significant refresh in 1975 along with the various packages and paint / vinyl treatments left it over styled and definitely struggling with its Federalized bumpers.
The ’71 – ’74 isn’t on my list of favorite cars, but its retro themes from early ’50s Cadillacs probably seemed spot on with Cadillac’s product planners after the success of other retro cars such as the ’69 Grand Prix, ’69 Continental Mark III, and 1970 Chevy Monte Carlo. The preceding ’67 – ’70 Eldorado had a look that appears to be the inspiration for Cadillac’s current Art and Science theme, and going retro for ’71 was the right decision as American’s ate up this look in the ’70s, and even treated Chrysler’s late entry into the market with the 1975 Cordoba very well.
The ’75 refresh dumped a lot of the retro, and it became an over styled rehash of the then current standard Cadillacs. By 1977, the Seville and the all new standard Cadillacs made this car completely outdated. The 1979 Eldorado could not arrive fast enough.
You can’t really blame a car that was marketed probably two years too long for Cadillac’s troubles in the ’80s and beyond. Besides that, Cadillac couldn’t just abandon this market to the Mark V which was selling like gangbusters.
Two visions of this car stick in my mind. Probably in 1976 I saw a young, sexy, fashionable couple at an interstate gas stop in a new one of these, with one of the brasher two tones and the painted wheel covers. It was a picture of Cadillac’s dream of what its buyer demographic would look like. Isolated away from reality, the scene looked like a million bucks.
Last summer I came across the twin of the subject car, in mint condition, in my church parking lot of all places. (Trying to avoid Deadly Sin status?) It was hard not to admire it for what it was, it had more “presence” than any of the 300 other cars in the lot.
The original Eldorado and Cadillac of 71 were the best of the lot: before the Federal bumpers, plastic end caps, rectangular headlights and overwrought hash slinging.
I found the subsequent 77 deVilles beautiful and “right” as well as the “downsized” Eldorado that came later.
This one is wretched excess, but I don’t think it’s a “DEadly Sin” that contributed to GM’s decline.
I remember in the late ’70s coming back home from the Sierras in a snowstorm. Traffic was slow and go, and chains were required. We were in our relatively new Honda Civic, with the chains mounted on the front wheels. Eventually we were passed by an Eldorado like this; it’s occupants laughing and pointing at our chain mounted front wheels. Of course, the chains on the Eldo were mounted on the rears. To this day, it may be why I’m not much of a brougham fan.
That’s a good story. The only thing that would have made it better would be to have seen that same Eldorado a few miles down the road, stuck in a ditch.
I have no doubt that there were more than a few Eldorado owners who simply assumed their land barges were RWD like every other large domestic car.
My first new car was a ’76 Eldorado convertible, ordered Sep. ’75, just before the “last convertible” mania began. For me, iIt represented the last “traumwagen”, a confection, not a car. It turned out to be a really good car, my family of four would routinely go 1,000 miles on the first day on a long trip, with a 16 quart cooler sitting on the flat front floor. After this, about ’86 I bought a ’78 Biarritz with 25k miles for $2,000 (waaaaaay out of style!), a virtual twin to the subject car. It also proved to be very reliable and comfortable, sold it four years later for $3,000.
So, despite the style/demographic/taste/efficiency issues, they functioned OK as actual vehicles.
Personally, I like these cars. I’m 35, and I remember my Grandparents still had their ’73 Eldorado in the ’80s. What a beautiful car.
BTW, the folks who are so sure the Lincoln Marks sold better than the Eldorado…..errr, not quite. The Eldorado and the Mark III were fairly close in sales, the Mark IV started to pull away from the Eldorado, and if you ignore the convertibles, the Mark IV does trounce the Eldorado….for a few years. And the sales “baton” bounced back and forth from the late 70s until both Cadillac and Lincoln stopped building these coupes.
AND, as has often been the case, when the GM offering got more gaudy/garish….it sold in BIGGER numbers. Makes you wonder whether a Corvette that looks like a Gremlin would be a runaway seller, as long as it had a largish pushrod engine.
These were the last echos of the past that venerated two seat Auburn boat tail roadsters and images of Gary Cooper driving his huge Dusenberg roadster. The imposing size of these machines was the design language of prestige. It’s effect lasted a long time as every American car got bigger and longer every year until, – until it was no longer sustainable, desirable, or legal (due to emmissions, fuel economy, safety, bumper standards etc.) When you consider the lead time necessary to design a new model GM knew these were well past their “sell by” date. Still they had to market what they were producing. The re-designed 1979 Eldorado was a knock out and a huge sales success. But even this design outlived it’s era and GM descended into a dark period of malaise that I don’t think they have fully recovered from. By the way, those plastic fillers were necessary to allow the compression of the bumper while still integrating the bumper into the design. MBZ just hung the bumper out in the wind. These plastic fillers are available from many restoration parts suppliers. If the rest of the cars body and paint are in good shape their condition wouldn’t dissuade me from a purchase.
Despite their being sales champions, I’ve never been able to muster a lot of affection for the Mark IV. The debut ’72 maybe, but once it got the railroad-tie bumpers, nope. Same deal with the ’73 and ’74 Eldorado–the original chiseled rear contours were destroyed by the big bumpers. But the ’75 refresh, for some reason, just *works* for me. In convertible form at least–the coupes don’t work as well. Roofline is a little awkward in the way it interacts with the fender kick-up (this was a problem on the pre-facelift cars too.) But a ’75 or ’76 convertible? I’d take one in a heartbeat. White over red leather for maximum effect. A ’75 or ’76 coupe I’d take over the equivalent Mark though. When the razor-edged Mark V arrived for ’77, Lincoln got its mojo back. (And the public thought so too–I want to say the ’79 V was the best sales year ever for the entire Mark series…)
Wrong. 😉
The 1972 Mark IV was the brand champion for Lincoln EVER… As well as the best selling Mark in the series.
Even, William Conrad’s, Detective Cannon, thought so. Lol
That same year, the 1972 De Ville line was the brand champion for Cadillac.
1972, was a stellar year for car sales, and a good economy helped… before the oncoming gas embargo.
might be a bit unfair to compare the 1979 model year- as it was heavily advertised as being the `last`of the big ones.
I prefer the IV and even the VI over the as you were able to personalize them a bit more on the exterior and interior….(this only applies to the 1975-1976 IV, the interior options pre-1975 were crap)
I owned a ’76 (non-Bairritz) for a few years in the mid-90’s when I lived in south FL. It was actually a gift. Say what you will but cruising down the palm-lined boulevards with the sun roof open on a mild February day was very enjoyable… I bolted a trailer hitch on it (and air shocks) and it was a good tow vehicle for a 3000 lb boat I had. Conventional wisdom says FWD is not so good for pulling a boat out on a wet ramp but with all that mass over the front wheels it had incredible traction and never spun a wheel. Sadly, the salt air took its toll and it had huge holes in the upper forward portion of rear quarter panels (among other advanced rust in roof structure). These were great places to stuff empty beer cans. Good thing it was BOF or it would have been sagging. Some time near the turn of the century we had a hurricane/3 day straight rain storm and the flooding killed the beast via water in oil and lack of oil pressure (although it did start). I’d always wanted to sawzall the roof off and make an artificial reef with that car but it wasn’t to be.
Back in the “old” days there was lots of GM hate on the “old” site. Combine that with a exceptionally nasty looking example of a not so great year/model. It’s a little more mellow on this site than back those days. I am glad to see the early PN articles in all their glory. It was written 5 years ago. All cars have their defenders/fans. It is hard to disagree these cars were in major decline compared to the glory days only a few years earlier. Besides, sometimes it’s fun to read a little snark!
One of the major reasons I left the “old” site. The GM hate was just pervasive among the commentariat and (if I recall correctly) among some of the writers. Paul was always much more reasonable than most on there, though. GM made a lot of mistakes but some people just want to continue bashing them today, when the “mistakes” they make now are just miniscule compared to the huge errors they made in the 70s and 80s.
I thought of my professor. He worked in GM for 35yrs and he left because he no longer enjoyed working there, but he still drives a ’00s Colorado ( which is a good truck, and especially doesn’t break into half like Toyota trucks do. I think that’s where all Toyota haters in rust belt come from ) and he likes certain things in GM ( including Oldsmobile ) and dislikes certain things ( Saturn L where he was involved ) So far I am never satisfied with GM at all ( from the ’50 Cadillac to newest Buick Regal, and my winter car LeSabre, or Silverado seats I worked on ) but I think GM will just stay there like Union Pacific.
I’m not a big fan of the 1971–78 Eldorado, although it’s hard for me to call it a Deadly Sin. Particularly the 1978 model, since by this point Cadillac was already preparing the downsized ’79, which was a very respectable piece of work.
My biggest objections to this generation are not so much the design or dynamics, although I don’t like them, but the sense of cheapness. For how much these cost, I would have expected a richer grade of materials, nicer detailing, and better fit-and-finish. And let’s not even start with the disintegrating filler plates…
Filler is a climate problem. The filler never disappears in Michigan but they do rust ( especially because of FWD ) and usually around where rust isn’t a problem, the filler doesn’t hold up. Either the empty filler or rust. And I think by late ’70s, fit-and-finish is alright if all the lines look straight in the photos ( my Volare doesn’t, even though export version looks so much better )
Yes, cheapskate GM, with their regular use of subpar materials.
This Caddy was a 1978… Glad to see GM didn’t care or needed to be stingy, even 7 years later, because the fillers on my 85 Regal disintergrated into plastic chips, except one lone front surviving piece.
Don’t even get me started on those falling headliners from 1976-90… All 3 of my 80’s GM cars have sagging headliners.
When I drive them, I feel like Aladdin sitting in his tent. 😀
Bumper filler is always vulnerable to sun damage, until bumper filler no longer appears on vehicles. Even as late as ’93, Imperial’s filler still falls apart. ( however, to which extend the filler on Fleetwood is different, as the filler is more of the body panel )
Those headliners are vulnerable to dry rot, but they do feel premium when newer. ( or on my 20yo Lincoln. ) To solve the dry rot problem, it’s replaced by thick and rough materials these days and quite annoying to see/touch, but they won’t fall anyway. ( it’s more of plastic or nylon rather than cloth )
I would have to agree. Strangely, Oldsmobile interiors in this era generally were much better than Cadillac’s. It was always a bit hard for me to admit that, but than I was an Olds guy and could betfer afford the Olds, so it worked out fine for me. The Thinking Man’s Cadillac.
the earlier version of this body looks much better, cause that’s how it was supposed to look…it wasn’t intended to have plastic fillers and giant bumpers. And it was intended to have a 350 hp engine. This is a classic example of how the government ruined cars in the 70s…it’s easy to bash Detroit for not instantly becoming foreign, but could Europe and Japan have instantly built good American large cars? The rush to force us out of traditional cars severely damaged our economy, and made a whole generation vow to always buy foreign. And the result is that about the same percentage still buy big RWD vehicles…they are just trucks. Wonder if the push to get rid of V8s in the trucks will be the end of the US car industry in the long run?
Blaming V8 for the fuel shortage is just an excuse. Usually in the right driving conditions ( excluding pizza delivery, excessive idling, and US coast areas where the traffic could be worse than pizza delivery ) the factor for fuel economy is wind drag, mass ( city driving ), gearbox, and overdrive, and load on engine. My Lincoln Mark VIII returns 27MPG cruising at 77mph with all the accessories on, while a ’11 Corolla has 5MPG drop merely for turning on the AC because it puts so much larger load on the engine. It only shows the incapability of smaller engines.
Aero drag kills truck/SUV fuel efficiency. Even if you install all those ugly aero gimmicks to reduce Cd (as seen on large commercial trucks), the larger cross-sectional area scales the Cd & this can’t be diminished much or it defeats the purpose of trucks.
The excellent EPA hwy. figures for the Mustang & ‘Vette are not only due to their understressed, powerful, digitally-managed engines with overdrive trannies, but also their low profiles.
The government only required the cars to meet emissions standards. As far as fuel consumption goes, the American people wanted better fuel efficiency after the oil embargo.
Detroit could have gone for electronic fuel injection to meet the standards and would have gotten better fuel efficiency too, but they took the cheapest way forward.
Even though it wasn’t mandatory for automakers to meet certain fuel consumptions, CAFE was there to make most vehicles fuel efficient ( which is good ) but too many cars had spartan catalytic converter and high MPG carburetor at the same time and the drivability is very compromised.
It could be alright for Chrysler to pay gas guzzler tax ( on Fifth Avenue, and Gran Fury ) on certain models, but it wouldn’t be alright if too many volume GM and Ford cars did the same, then GM had the Cadillac 8-6-4 system, Oldsmobile diesel, and Ford had the 3.8 Essex Continental, BMW diesel and Windsor 255.
Electronic fuel injection wise, I think after the ’81-’83 Imperial, no one would rush it to the market.
Cadillac had digital throttle body fuel injection before the 8-6-4, which worked very well. The 83 Skyhawk that I had had this system on it. GM could very easily have put digital throttle body fuel injection on everything by the mid 80’s had they wanted to.
Fuel efficiency requires more than just electronic fuel injection. Tuned port manifolds are what gave the 85 Corvette much better performance with decent fuel consumption.
My comment above was aimed @ Matt – the government did not ruin cars in the 70’s – the automakers did that, mainly by putting off what they needed to do until too late to do it right.
It’s powder blue with powder blue leather and a hood that doesn’t quit. It’s a Mickey Spillane heroine, but I’d still take it home.
My parents are generally amused at my continual ownership of land yachts. However, on occasion they suggest I should get a front wheel drive car, and I always threaten to come home with one of these.
As cliche as it is I’d love one in the fleet.
We all have to take a step back and remember what technology was like in the mid to late ’70’s and also what people’s expectations of an automobile were back then as well. Cadillacs were always huge luxury cars. The more vinyl tops and pillowed interiors the cars had the “better” and “more luxurious” they were considered. This particular car had the Biarritz package which was almost a $2000 option back then! This was THE ultimate luxury car! Yes, it was dated and old technology for the times, but owners of these didn’t care. It was Cadillac’s finest and that’s all that mattered. Owning a Cadillac meant something and this car fit the bill perfectly.
When the 1977 GM downsizing occurred, I remember that the dealers were very scared as to what the outcome would be from the American public. We all know the outcome – GM did astonishingly well, and then the Eldo-Toro-Riviera downsizing came in 1979 and again GM had a hit with these models too. So the ’78 Eldorado must be appreciated for what it is today and what it was back then. It was at the end of its life cycle, motoring on and providing Cadillac dealers and customers what they expected. I honestly think GM was smart, and a little lucky in the way they introduced the smaller Cadillacs to the American public. The Seville was the first “small” Cadillac and it sold great. Then we had the downsized deVilles/Fleetwood which sold like crazy too. So when the time came for the downsized Eldorado, it looked beautiful and the customers were ready for it. GM’s transitioning from huge boats to trimmed down luxury cars could not have been executed any better than it was in the late ’70’s, IMHO. It actually changed the American auto industry AND customer’s expectations of a full-sized luxury car forever. The other manufacturers were left scrambling to catch up.
+1
I see hammering on the low-hanging fruit is alive and well. Color me shocked. Not.
As a 1970s period piece, I like this car. I recognize that this particular one has led a rough life, but if I had somewhere to park one, I wouldn’t mind having a big Eldo or Toronado from this era.
Was leather upholstery less common, even in luxury cars, during that time? I keep thinking about the Buicks, Olds and Cadillacs my neighbors had when I was a kid, and I seem to think that most had crushed velour seats.
Those damn urethane bumper fillers fall apart, even if the car is garaged. I was involved with a 78 or 79 Fleetwood 75 limousine that belonged to the Hunter family , the folks who make Hunter wheel alignment equipment…this car was garaged its whole life, and had LOW miles, but the fillers self-destructed, and had to be replaced about 5 years ago. Thankfully, harder plastic replacements are/were readily available…paint ’em and put ’em on.
So what exactly was the purpose of those plastic bits? To help save the sheetmetal from damage in a minor collision? To allow for easier styling facelifts? To make it cheaper to build?
Even when the plastic was in good shape, I always thought having cutlines a few inches before the grille or taillights was unattractive.
I’m a fan, and I don’t mind Paul’s trashing of it. These were polarizing cars. I dig them though… ones that have been nicely preserved, of course. Make mine a two-tone interior, of course, red dash/pillars/headliner/seatbelts/carpet and white seats/panels. Yum!!!
The missing filler panels in the last photo actually improve the proportions, making the overhangs look shorter.
As a vehicle, there is no real excuse for these, as with many if not most American cars
of the seventies. As as a snapshot of an era, there is nothing finer.
Seen as a hobby car, these are interesting and quite inexpensive in nice shape, and I
would think one would make an enjoyable relic to cruise around in listening to 8 tracks. A
quick check on ebay sold listings shows several nice coupes that went for under 5k.
Here’s a positive statement about cars like this: I’m glad we don’t often see them belching and dragging along as clapped out transport devices anymore. There’s something to be said for the “Everything Old is Classic and Rare” mentality, which means cars like this either get stored, restored, or parted out and recycled. Not so long ago it wasn’t uncommon to see an old geezer or a down-on-their-luck young family making one of these in similar condition work as basic transport. Many a land yacht could once be seen plying back roads and Walmart parking lots, rusted, leaking, accessories long ago non-functioning, blighting the landscape and stinking up the air. The Good Old Days weren’t always all that great. I’m all for loving and preserving them as a hobby, but I’m thankful that the 2002 Camry is the new go-to end stage beater.
That is an excellent point. A former luxury car reduced to beater status is sad; a mainstream car so treated is just the circle of life.
Oceans have been crossed in smaller vessels. Even when these came out, my eleven year old self thought the Eldorado was ridiculously large for its interior volume.
I regularly drive a 1978 Sedan DeVille and it is a tidy package in comparison, with much more interior room.
The195 hp 425 was, from my limited research, fuel injected and optional across the entire line. I have never seen one and wonder of any still exist. The ones with carbs seem to be rated at 180 hp. I doubt the difference would amount to much.
Either way, Cadillac V-8s were known for gobs of torque and the 425 still had plenty that. Driving the Grand Lady is really hoot because of it.
I certainly wouldn’t use the word “classic” in any positive light.
Taking the fender skirts off the Eldo in ’75 really reduced the appearance of bloat, despite the fender extensions and huge bumpers. The Biarritz package reversed that somehow, I guess through roof padding. It was more effective, and more common, on the downsized Eldo.
It’s hard to envision a ’74-6 CdV or ’75-8 Eldo with a full vinyl roof, the cabriolet roofs were so popular with the larger opera windows of those years. Even fewer were sold with bare metal.
I am only going to say this once… when was the last time you saw a ’78 Mercedes still being used as a daily driver? Enough said!
Yesterday (though to be fair, I’m not 100 per cent sure it’s not a ’77 or a ’79).
There is one thing about this example that still gives off a whiff of Cadillac greatness. The color. This blue-green reminds me of the attractive Firemist colors from the 60s when Cadillac prestige was virtually unassailable. Lots of folks never liked big, flashy Cadillacs even then but it was hard to deny their presence. The color is great and I think lends a bit of grace to what is, in effect, the automotive equivalent of a forlorn Northern Black Rhinoceros.
Checking the 1978 Cadillac color chart, I think this is “Columbia Blue”. Another possibility is “Mediterranean Blue Firemist” which is a little darker. The color selection for 1978 is pretty nice, bright and cheery in my opinion with 3 blues, 3 greens, copper, bronze, gold, carmine, yellow and more. It is quite a contrast to the monotonous selection offered on new cars today. (It makes me think that there must be something wrong with us not to want more colors now. More color might act as a mild mood elevator for our troubled times. It couldn’t hurt.)
https://www.ebay.com/itm/312864683279
Driving impression you ask? I got to drive a virtually new 1976 Bicentennial Edition convertible that had about 1200 miles on it. Think of jello on a plate. Think of a giant plate with a big pile of jello sitting on it and you are sitting on the jello with a steering wheel in your hands. Imagine the edges of the plate are the edges of a car you are trying to maneuver around but you can’t really see where those plate edges are. Also imagine that someone told you that the steering wheel is connected to something but every steering effort you make is absorbed by the jello and so the effort has a lag time before you know that it had an effect.
I didn’t get to put that museum piece through its paces performance wise. I really would like to take this featured car, or one like it with some decent tires, and put it on a skid-pad and throw it around a bit just to see what it was capable of.
The missing bumper fillers? Ultra violet death rays from the sun are responsible. Think of them as the “canary in the coalmine.” The same thing will happen to you if you don’t keep moving to dodge those blasts.