Things were more interesting in past eras when trim levels were designated by models (Biscayne, Bel Air, Impala). Today, we have one model name with trim levels like SL and LT that have absolutely no meaning . . . well, that’s not quite true, as certain names that used to have a certain caché now have to suffer the indignity of being watered down—perhaps “Sunfire GT” was a step up from the base Sunfire, but it’s hardly a Gran Turismo. “Brougham” has suffered a similar fate, although this happened around 40 years ago.
The Brougham was named after the British statesman Henry Brougham, 1st Baron Brougham and Vaux (1778-1868). He actually was the designer of the bodystyle that carries (pun not intended) his name, which resembles a small carriage version of a town car (meaning a driver up front with a separate, closed compartment for the aristocrats behind). Of course, the earliest automobiles resembled carriages without the horse, but the Brougham bodystyle eventually evolved into something that was prestigious but not as fancy or rich as the limousine-like, chauffeur-driven town car, according to a history lesson from Jalopnik.
From 1957-60, Cadillac produced the Eldorado Brougham, a competitor to the Continental Mark II (and priced like a Rolls-Royce) that was General Motors’ showcase of everything technological and futuristic. Eventually Americans would have the Pontiac Bonneville with the optional Brougham package, which featured an upgraded interior, but by the 1970s Americans would have Torino Broughams and the like that increasingly got more pimped out as the decade wore on.
Better than Torino SE, right?
Comments
May as well claim where the “inspiration” for this came from and have just linked to the, sorry to say, better written story Jalopnik did on Thursday.
Thanks Andrew. I’ve noticed things have really gone down hill here lately too. IMO.
Elaborate.
So many stories/articles with few to no comments, like these things are of little care and unimportant to responders is what I’m getting at. Thank you.
It’s not that GMA going ‘down hill’. Moreover, not every post covers a subject that’s interesting.
Considering that GMA is a one-topic blog, there’s only so much mileage that can be had out of an article about Roger Smith’s nose hairs or Lutz’ house cat powered Suburban. Not everything posted is interesting to all people, and GMA can’t be all things to all of it’s readers.
On the other hand, such a blog serves as an archival record AS a one-topic blog. For instance, I don’t particularity care about K2XX news, but what good would a blog about GM be if it wasn’t covering the K2XX’s and the segment they’re in? I’ll need to know the how and the what’s of the K2XX someday, and I’ll go to GMA when I do.
We strive to be a more-and-more encompassing General Motors content site every day. And because of this, we are the largest website of its kind in terms of volume and overall coverage in the world, covering everything from the C8 Corvette to a GM executive hiring in the Middle East. Last I checked, that’s the whole point of people coming here.
I got to say that this is an excellent website and prefer this site over other sites that does not always talk about GM vehicles purely like “GM Inside News” for example when they talk about other automakers as well in the forums.
Although I am not a pure GM fan by heart, I am a pure Cadillac fan and always look forward to read anything about Cadillac and do enjoy looking at anything related within or about GM if need to read something on this site.
It disappoints me to no end how GM takes a prestigious name like the Eldorado Brougham (1957 — 1960), or part of it (Brougham) and disrepects it by using it to name other much less prestigious models. The El Dorado name really went downhill in past years. Did they think they could fool people?
I agree with you. Although I’m ok with the current designs and naming strategy for Cadillac, I really do miss some of the past offerings. My biggest is the El Dorado. Coupes aren’t in anymore, but still miss it and would like to one day find one of the ’92 to ’02 models and have it completely restored as they were my favorite of the more modern ones. Money and a place to put it (the car) the main drawback.
I agree also. The Cadillac Eldorado Seville coupe and Convertible was highly admired back in the day from ‘1953-‘1966 with high style and technology. I like the fact that they were expensive enough that they were not many on the road and this car was pretty much found its way in wealthy homes. This car on average had a price tag that you can buy three cars, a Sedan Deville, Chevy and some other brand for the price of the Eldorado.
GM started to become greedy when they start mass-producing the Eldorado in ‘1967 and started to neglect Cadillac after that, mostly in the 70s.
Even in the ’50s and ’60s’ the Fleetwood had the similar admiration like the Eldorado particularly the Sixty Special and Fleetwood Series ’75.
What’s in a name? It’s hardly about greed – the Eldorado convertibles of the 1960s (Biarritz I believe was last used in 1964) were merely fancier DeVilles or companion Fleetwoods. They didn’t really have the panache of pre-1961 cars. The 1967 Eldorado was hardly mass-produced greed, and if it was called LaSalle instead, you wouldn’t making that comment.
If Cadillac was neglected, it was a symptom of the 1970s and the problems General Motors had in that era, NOT something that had started with a FWD behemoth in 1967.
Well lets see here for a second, shall we,
Eldorado model year and production:
1953 = 532 units
1954 = 2,150 units
1955 = 3,950 units
1956 = 6,050 units
1957 = 3,900 units
1958 = 1,671 units
1959 = 2,295 units
1960 = 2,360 units
1961 = 1,450 units
1962 = 1,450 units
1963 = 1,825 units
1964 = 1,870 units
1965 = 2,125 units
1966 = 2,250 units
1967 = 17,930 units
1968 = 24,528 units
1969 = 23,333 units
1970 = 23,842 units
1971 = 27,368 units
1972 = 40,074 units and so forth after for each year volume of 5 figures.
So if it is not mass produce than what is your definition of mass produce, Diego Rosenberg? Why is it that the Eldorado sold more than 20,000 units each year while the pre ’67 models sold on average of 2,500 units a year? Simple, the ’67 and after became a lot cheaper and did not have that exclusivity anymore. Exclusivity are not mass produce. They are rare. So in your eyes, it is not considered greed? O.K, to each their own I guess.
Cadillac started a downward spiral with the 67 Eldorado that was mass produce, which I don’t call 25,000 units a year exclusive. GM chose to cheapen Cadillacs in the late 60s and throughout the 70s-00s and the Eldorado was nothing special anymore after that.
I am a Cadillac enthusiast and while you don’t share my opinion that is fine but the fact is I am pointing the faults of Cadillac and GM when they start cheapening Cadillacs. I like the direction Cadillac is going now with their cars and pricing their cars accordingly because the details are finally there but there was no excuse for Cadillac and GM to cheapen and neglect their cars after that in the 70s. Although they don’t have a positive image like they did in the 60s and before, it is better than it was 10-20 years ago.
You may want to recheck your production figures because they are off.
But, again, what’s in a name? Like I said, if they called the Eldo something else in 1967, you wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Besides, using a name to designate a trim level and then applying that name on a new, successful model hardly constitutes “mass production.”