Was at Lake Keowee in upstate SC with friends yesterday. With a parking lot full of pickup trucks with boat trailers, this guy shows up! Looks like a '71 Cadillac convertible.
Was at Lake Keowee in upstate SC with friends yesterday. With a parking lot full of pickup trucks with boat trailers, this guy shows up! Looks like a '71 Cadillac convertible.
Surprise! He's one of us!
Moby the white whale, very nice. I love that gen of Eldorado.
Hunter S. Thompson approved.
In reply to Appleseed :
I was going to ask if the driver was mumbling faster than the human ear can understand and covered in a thick layer of sweat.
Awesome..
Love the Eldos with the round headlights and smaller bumpers.
That's awesome. Though weren't those Eldorados complete pigs with a FWD V8 drivetrain?
Makes me think about Jeff Bridges riding around Idaho with Clint Eastwood just after getting his brains beaten out by George Kennedy and company.
Damn fine car movie too.
Not generally a fan of the landbarges but that is cool!
dannyzabolotny said:That's awesome. Though weren't those Eldorados complete pigs with a FWD V8 drivetrain?
Eldorados were front wheel drive from 1967 on. "Complete pigs" is a matter of opinion! They still had a 500ci v8 and so continued to rule hard core. The 1977s stepped down to a measly 425ci v8 and then the 1979s were sadly saddled with a wimpy 350. Eldorados were always big, heavy cars with little in the way of sporting intention - they were always 2-door luxury cars - so FWD is not really a handicap when considering their intent. It's like bemoaning FWD on a motor home or transit bus. Enjoy the loafing ride and acres of red leather.
^^ Agreed, and the 500 CID V8 was no slouch. In 1970, IIRC it made 440hp and over 500 lb/ft of torque. In 71 it slipped a bit to 385hp and 440 lb/ft---- still plenty to get the barge moving! After 1972 power went downhill---- quickly.
I had a 71 coupe when I lived in Colorado. The test of speed up there is "how fast can you clear Eisenhower tunnel", which is a long tunnel blown through the mountains at about 10K feet--- on I-70. In the Eldo, the answer always was "how fast do you wanna go?" With all that torque, the car would head up the big hill faster than you wanted it to. With loosey- goosie handling, weak brakes, and steering that was a guessing game--- things got real interesting over 80mph.
I loved that car. Sure it got single digit mpg, but it was the most comfortable thing I've ever driven. I've never had so much fun going slow! Tilt and telescopic steering, automatic climate control, Caddy's "seeing eye" that would dim your high beams for oncoming traffic, and fiber optic indicator lights on the ends of the fenders! The Eldo was pretty packed with tech for it's time!
Ultimater?
The Elco is cool as hell, but on a slimy moss covered steep ramp isn't FWD an issue?
In reply to 914Driver :
Yes it would be. That falls under my opinion of anything FWD should have a tow rating of exactly 0. With FWD, your trailer tongue weight is added to the non-drive wheels and the tongue weight will often lever some weight off of the drive wheels. So you're left trying to move more weight with less traction. Add an uphill to start on and you've moved even more weight off the drive wheels, despite needing more traction to get moving.
With RWD for comparison, all of those same situations add weight to the drive wheels, so you increase your available drive traction as you increase the demand for it.
This one for sale near me has a picture of it towing a boat in the ad. Is this really a thing?
https://muncie.craigslist.org/cto/d/74-cadillac-eldorado/6317052866.html
Compression was indeed reduced in '71. I'm pretty sure though that the only difference between a '71 and '72 is the numbers. '71 rated in the old gross numbers while '72 was rated SAE net. They may have taken another hit in '73 but I'm pretty sure '71 and '72 are identical.
rslifkin said:In reply to 914Driver :
Yes it would be. That falls under my opinion of anything FWD should have a tow rating of exactly 0. With FWD, your trailer tongue weight is added to the non-drive wheels and the tongue weight will often lever some weight off of the drive wheels. So you're left trying to move more weight with less traction. Add an uphill to start on and you've moved even more weight off the drive wheels, despite needing more traction to get moving.
With RWD for comparison, all of those same situations add weight to the drive wheels, so you increase your available drive traction as you increase the demand for it.
In reply to rslifkin :
Not to troll, but I will disagree and point out math also disagrees with the idea of tongue weight having a significant impact...
The FWD probably has a higher percentage of its weight on the drive wheels, even with a trailer, than your average 2wd pickup.
The lever arm the trailer is working on is significantly shorter than the wheelbase so only a portion of the tongue weight is seen as lightening of the drive wheels.
As an example, the Kia Sedona has a 120” wheel base and the hitch ball is probably 36” or less behind the Center rear wheels. 300 lbs (3000lb trailer) on the tongue would take less than 100lbs off the drive wheels.
The effect of the force pulling back on the ball would be even less, unless you have the ball mount at a ridiculously high position if the ball was 6” higher than the axle centerline, it would only lighten the drive wheels by 5% in a worst case, but more likely it would be a fraction of that based on the slope of the ramp and how easily the trailer rolled
As an added benefit the drive wheels on FWD have a better chance of staying on the drier section of the ramp. While a RWD ends up with the drive wheels close/in the water and subjected to the slippery moss/slime.
On the Sedona example the drive wheels would also be at least 10 feet away from the water, so less likely to have moss/slime to deal with when pulling a boat out.
Good point about boat ramp slime. Hadn't thought of that one. But with your example, assuming we start with 2 vehicles of the same proportions to keep the math easy, let's say both weigh 4000 lbs empty. FWD vehicle has 2400 lbs on the front wheels, 1600 on the rear. RWD one is 2200 / 1800. So the FWD vehicle starts out with 600 lbs more on the drive wheels when it's empty.
Let's add the trailer weight, say 3000 lbs total, 300 on the tongue. So the total weight to move is now 7000 lbs. Keeping with your math from earlier, each vehicle loses 100 lbs off its front wheels, gains 400 on the rear wheels. So the FWD vehicle is now at 2300 / 2000 for weight, RWD at 2100 / 2300. So we've got 2300 lbs on the drive wheels to move 7000 lbs in either case.
But now we need to get moving from a stop sign while pointed up hill. The angle could easily move another 100 lbs back, especially in something tall like a minivan. So now the FWD vehicle is down to 2200 lbs on the drive wheels to drag the 7000 lbs up a hill while the RWD vehicle is up to 2400 lbs.
And we haven't even taken weight transfer from acceleration into account, which makes the RWD setup look better again regardless of a hill or flat ground.
And if we're carrying any stuff in the tow vehicle, that again will add more weight to the rear axle than the front. And if we add more tongue weight to the trailer, that'll make the difference bigger as well.
maschinenbau said:This one for sale near me has a picture of it towing a boat in the ad. Is this really a thing?
https://muncie.craigslist.org/cto/d/74-cadillac-eldorado/6317052866.html
Interesting hitch attachment.
Never knew those things were FWD.
I have to wonder why? Weren't other GM cars RWD back then? Why go with a unique drivetrain for this one model?
In reply to LanEvo :
Because this model was an expensive luxury car and FWD takes up less space in the passenger compartment?
Also, the fwd was used on at least 2 models.
I'm pretty sure it was the beginning of GM's push towards making everything FWD because it was supposedly "safer"
The 66 Tornado was FWD because it was innovative, efficient and created more interior space. It was a big hit--- deservedly so.
Caddilac used the same platform as the Olds for their Eldorado, but with different engines.
Both the Caddy and the Olds soldiered on into the mid-seventies, until "downsizing" happened in 1979. The Toronado had some pretty wacky styling elements along the way---- like the wraparound rear window. It was a strange time for styling......heck, it was just a strange time!
I like this fellow's style.
In reply to rslifkin :
You make some good points, but there are a few variables that are tough to account for without specific vehicles to compare.
My point was that the effect of tongue weight and trailer weight on fwd isn’t as much of a disadvantage as your post implied.
Generalizing about the ability of fwd vs RWD to pull a trailer up a boat ramp is really just guessing. There are a lot of factors that can affect the available traction, and unless specific vehicles are compared it’s just speculation.
You'll need to log in to post.
