Talk:Cadillac Eldorado

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Brands (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Eldorado Brougham section delete[edit]

Why was the 1957-1960 Eldorado Brougham section deleted? As best as I can tell, at one time the Eldorado Brougham section was independent, then incorporated into this article, and then on April 1, 2009 removed. I can't figure out why. I admit my absolute newbie status; but I can't see any violations (unless the photo of the Brougham was inappropriate, and then it should have been deleted with the information text retained). I'm not adept enough to reconstruct this, but please return the Eldorado Brougham section to as it was on March 31, 2009. Thank you. PVarjak (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Was there a factory convertible of the final Eldorado body style? A dealer near here has an "ESC convertible" that looks stock, but I never heard of such a thing. A quick google search turned up nothing conclusive. --SFoskett 14:02, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Nope. All such that exist are custom jobs. Could that be ASC? I think American Sunroof Corporation may have made up a batch. RivGuySC 18:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First Generation[edit]

I don't believe the 1954 Eldorado should be included with the 1953 as "first generation". It was a unique body style (for Cadillac; I'm not counting the similarly-bodied 1953 Oldsmobile Sierra) that was not continued into 1954. (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The 1960s[edit]

Cadillac Eldorado -- The 1960s -- To avoid image stackups into the next section, I co-aligned two Cadillac images together in a DIV and then added a forced break before the next section.

More on Wikipedia's Picture Tutorial
Mardus 01:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

1971 Eldorado[edit]

I just added my stock '71 convertible to the mix. If the photos are improperly placed, feel free to move them. Wwmitchell 01:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Bill Mitchell

1986–1991 model and a consultant's prediction[edit]

"News reports later indicated that GM had been led astray by a consultant's prediction that gasoline would be at $3 per US gallon in the U.S. by 1986 and that very small luxury cars would be in demand."

The consultant's prediction was ultimately correct, but off by 20 years :-). Is it thus possible to claim that seventh generation (1986–1991) Eldorados' fuel economy is still reasonable with what the current petrol prices are in North America — compared both to previous and later models, which appear to have a more dismal fuel economy? -Mardus 17:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


Is this a copyvio from there -- -- or here?? -Mardus 18:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Hi, I have a 1991 eldorado touring coupe in black. I ordered the car new. There were some errors in the description. First off the final drive ratio is 3.08. Second, the Bose stereo, both available in cassette or cd was an extra cost option on touring coupe, not standard, as was the extra cost sunroof and the extra cost heated windshield. I didn't get the cd player as they skipped badly at this time, with no buffer memory, and the windshield with the heated wires prevented radar detectors from working. Overall it is a great car. I keep it as a "nice day car " now. Any questions can be referred to Nickm63 (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The Last Cadillac[edit]


Not that I disagree, but pretty sure this would count as violating NPOV. (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture Choice[edit]

The lead picture to this article should be an Eldorado, not the 1959 model currently used. Ideally, I would think it should be a picture which best represents the model's styling cues over its lifetime, and not include a great deal of aftermarket accessories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the image of the '72 was the best quality, so I put it at the top. --Sable232 (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to respectfully but strongly disagree with that choice. The 1959 Eldorado Biarritz is THE widely recognized classic and commands the highest price of any model before or since. WwmitchellBill Mitchell24.205.185.132 (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I replaced the top photo with a 1958 Eldorado Brougham. In my opinion, it's a much better photo, and a much more stylish model than the 1972. I wrote to the owner of the photo and was given permission to post it here. I know there is also a separate Brougham page, but since this is one of the most spectacular Eldorados, I think it belongs here. --Wwmitchell (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The picture of the "fifth generation" car is not an Eldorado. Instead, it is a 1969 Cadillac Coupe DeVille convertible. A handsome car to be sure, but not an Eldorado. --91SDVowner (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. We've got an editor here whose newest method of being disruptive is placing images of the wrong car or of the wrong generation. --Sable232 (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sable, do you own that '72? Even though I own the '71 that you moved, I think most would agree, it's a lot better looking photo to use as the main example of its generation. The angle looks fine to me. Anyway, I won't change it back. I'll leave that to an objective third party to decide.--Wwmitchell (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't (although I wish I did!) The picture of your car is taken from too close (making it look as if one is looking downward at the car) and shows too much of the front compared to the side. --Sable232 (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This article IS NOT too long[edit]

I strongly and adamantly disagree with whomever is responsible for placing the "Article is too long" banner at the top of this page!!! The Cadillac Eldorado is an iconic, historically significant contribution to the history of the American automobile. I also feel that the Eldorado Brougham page should be included in this section and not retained as an additional page.MJEH (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A car this long deserves an article this long! --Wwmitchell (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The only thing in this article that might be too long is the section on "Powertrain anomalies." I think explaining that on the engine's page is enough, it shouldn't have to spread like a tumor to every article on the affected cars. A summary is enough. --Sable232 (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I need help, I am finding it very difficult to obtain the torque specs for the heads of a 1994 4.6 liter nothstar. Can anyone help? (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Mikey@

Long count[edit]

There is a contradiction in production figures between Ludvigsen & Flory. Can anybody sort it out? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Digital Dash?[edit]

about this passage...

"1984 was also the first year electronic "digital" instrumentation was an available option. In addition to the digital electronic climate control that was standard on all Eldorados, the standard analog speedometer and fuel gauges could be replaced with a digital display showing speed in a single, precise, and instant number and a fuel gauge that would read the number of gallons of fuel remaining in the gas tank and another gauge showing approximately how many miles can be driven on it."

My 1981 Eldorado Biarritz with the 368 engine had this feature. I dont believe that 1984 was the first year — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

steel plate[edit]

I, for one, think the steel plate story is baloney. A balance problem corrected with a steel plate under the driver's seat? Come on. Totally ridiculous. Somebody help me with this. This can't beLonginus876 (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it, based on the fact that its' completely unsupported by any reference. Information in a Wikipedia article needs to be verifiable and supported by notable sourcing... period.842U (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The edits regarding the steel plate were originally added [[1]]; there is nolonger an editor of that name on Wikipedia -- and the talk page for that user suggests an ignominious end. It looks like the edits made by the user were all unsourced and highly anecdotal. It's likely they were Original Research. Thanks for catching it. If there is indeed any truth to the info, then let someone else reintroduce the info... with a bona fide source.842U (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong image for 1959 Eldorado[edit]

I just came to this page and noticed there is a wrong image under '1959 Eldorado', the car pictured here is a 1960 Series 62 convertible, not a '59 Eldorado. Unfortunately I don't have sufficient privileges to replace this picture but I do have a great high res GM factory image of a 1959 Eldorado that this picture can be replaced with and without copyright issues. If anyone could change that picture let me know and I can send the correct image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blade0817 (talkcontribs) 03:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Third Generation: 1957-1960[edit]

This grouping doesn't make much sense. The 1959-1960 cars are radically different from the 1957-58 models -- not just regarding the Eldorado but for General Motors as a whole. They have much more in common with their 1961-64 successors than they do with the 1957-58 cars. 1957-58 should comprise the third generation; the 1959-1960 cars should be grouped with the 1961-64 models. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)