Campers aren’t the most elegant looking things in the world. But, what about a land yacht of a Cadillac converted into a camper? Now we’re talking.
Unfortunately, the Craigslist seller has deleted the official for sale post, but fear not. Car and Driver has immortalized this Cadillac Eldorado camper.
For just $4,000, someone made off with an interesting method of transportation. The seller even gave it an appropriately interesting name, too. Guys, meet “El Dordo.”
El Dordo features a 425 cubic-inch V8 engine and is ready to see this fine land with room for plenty in its bunks housed in the rear. If you’re motivated, maybe you can find the new owner before they hit the road in this contraption. Galax, Virgina is your destination.
Comments
Anyone want to challenge me on Cadillac losing it’s swagger decades ago now?
I challenge. Respectfully of course. That’s a 1977 Eldo pulling the camper. Cadillac did NOT lose its swagger in the 70’s. If you want to make a case 20 years later, with the German riding/designed/built Catera, then that’s a point where Caddy was starting to doubt itself. Two years later (1999) it lost the luxury sales lead (to Lincoln) and it hasn’t gotten it back since then. Still some swagger left though, and there would be even more if Cadillac would just be Cadillac.
Sure and they take V 16 Caddies and make campers out of them all the time!
You can challenge all you like but the evidence shown here tells the story.
As they say a picture is worth a thousand words.
While Caddie was still declining after this they were no longer the brand they once were and only got worse.
The camper here is a “Helldorado”
Scott3, I’m not sure I understand your point. The camper is a custom job. It’s not as if Cadillac was actually making campers in 1977. That 1977 Eldorado had plenty of swagger. It was trying to copy the Germans in 1997 (i.e. the German designed and built Catera) that took away Cadillac’s swagger. Someone threw in the towel on behalf of Cadillac when they put the Cadillac badge on that very German (RWD, hard-riding, rounded edge bodied, cramped, overengineered, unreliable) Catera. That sure wasn’t the 70’s.
Drew the Catera was only one of many issues at Cadillac. In fact the Catera is one of the few many do not even remember.
My point is that cars with real classic swagger are not turned into campers. Ever seen a V16 Cadillac made into a camper? Mercedes 300SL campers? Duesenburg campers?
I am not sure why but as Cadillac declined the camper conversion thing became popular in the 60’s with racers and carnies. I am not kidding as these were common in the 60’s and 70’s for some reason.
Cadillac’s decline was over several decades and did not happen with one model or one year. It bottomed out in the 80’s.
The Cadillac went high volume and mass production and just became too common and acceable to people that should not have owned one.
Cars with swagger are not cars just anyone should own. They should be desired by all but only owned by those with the means.
The Cadillac became a car that was about as common as a Chevy build on the same line and platforms. They lost their higher grade materials and craftsmanship. They lost their own engines. They were a shadow of what they once were.
The degrade was like boiling a frog. You start is out slow and bring it to a boil over time and the frog never notices till it is too late. That is what happened to Cadillac.
Today they are working to go the other way and are making progress but just as they lost the swagger they will need time and investment to get it back. One model and one years is not going to do it.
They need to build cars 40 years from now people want to restore and not make a camper out of them.
Scott3, I have not seen any Cadillac-campers other than the one above. And if someone could pick up an old Cadillac at a good price and wants to camper-ize it, that doesn’t mean the original design was in decline.
I’ll have to disagree also with your definition of “swagger”. To me it does not mean very rare, ultra-expensive, and out of reach for everyone except the 1%, even as a used car. I don’t see Rolls Royce as a car with “swagger”, just an ultra-expensive, well-made, nice-riding “status symbol” car. A car with “swagger” could be something like the Pontiac Firebird Trans-Am with the gaudy “bird” decal. Or the Plymouth Road Runner Superbird, to use an even more outrageous car with the bird theme. Swagger to my mind says that you are willing to stand out, you feel that you dominate your category in a look-at-me and somewhat bad-ass way. That’s not limited to or even necessarily inclusive of an ultra-exclusive, highly refined car like a Rolls Royce or Mercedes S-Class.
Cadillac is not Rolls Royce or Mercedes Benz. Not BMW either. Never was, shouldn’t try to be. This concept of “I don’t want other people to own my Cadillac” is nonsense and somewhat offensive. Economics have changed, the average person can afford much more than in the past, and that’s been true most generation over generation. When I was 10 years old, almost everyone had a black-and-white tv, and not even 1% of Americans had a color tv as large as 25″. Now almost everyone can afford a good color tv of much more than 25″. Back then, cars nearly all had hand crank windows, vinyl seats, cheap AM radios, no air-conditioning, and broke down frequently. Today people can afford much better. If more people can afford a nice, true Cadillac today, then that’s great. What benefit do you get by keeping something nice out of the reach of someone else? I don’t understand that mentality, and I find it to be distasteful.
Back to “swagger”. Sure you are not going to have a cheap car like a Chevy Sonic with “swagger”. But I also don’t see it as synonymous with “snooty” or “ultra expensive”, even if you do. We obviously don’t all see Cadillac’s place and its history the same way, that’s fine, but don’t assume that your definition of “swagger” holds for everyone else.
Swagger – a very confident and typically arrogant or aggressive gait or manner.
A Sonic RS reflects that definition more so than this camper shell with a huge hood.
The role and business plan of Cadillac is to project exclusivity. This exclusivity isn’t so much about keeping others down, it’s driven by people NOT wanting to have what everyone else has. Exclusiveness is also about that individuality. The Dare campaign isn’t marketed to the average person. Chevy (and Buick somewhat) are there for the average person (whatever average is) and offer many good products.
GM is trying to fix the mistakes of the 70’s & 80’s. It’s all about profit and image. If Cadillac can project the high quality image with the product to back up the claims, then they can command higher prices and drive more profit/unit. Those extra profits can be used to further compound earnings and fund advancement within the other GM brands. This is beneficial to the high end consumer who doesn’t want what everyone else has – who wants to be different with wealth supporting their individuality. The spreading of the funding to the other brands helps the average consumer as well when R&D invested can later be combined with the economies of scale to improve Chevrolets brand to remain competitive. When done right, it lifts all brands under the GM umbrella.
Thank you for posting a dictionary definition of swagger. That fits my understanding of the definition as well, not Scott3’s.
But you have to realize that the 1977 Eldorado was not meant to be a camper shell. Nor does the fact someone turned it into one give it any less “swagger”. What about the “Cadillac Ranch” in Texas? That “sculpture” of half-buried Cadillacs uses models believed to be from 1948 through 1963 (or possibly 1964). Is the Cadillac Ranch (created in 1974) “proof” that Cadillac had lost its swagger in the 1948-63/64 years? No it isn’t. And the fact that someone would camperize a 1977 Eldorado some 40 years later, is not “proof” that Cadillac had lost its swagger in the 1970’s.
As to Cadillac/GM making a profit, what business/economics classes did you attend? Making a profit in cars is not just about commanding high prices and thus high gross profit margins per car. If you don’t sell enough cars, you will lose money even if your gross profit margin is very high. Cars have extremely high costs of design, engineering, development, testing, tooling for production, advertising, etc. If you have some ultra-exclusive car with very limited sales volume, it will be very hard for you to cover the initial (fixed) costs of that model.
It’s not at all a matter of being able to use “high margin” (i.e. high gross margin) cars with limited sales as “profit centers” to fund other GM brands. There is no profit on a particular model if your volume on that model is too low, even with very high gross margins per car (i.e. the sales price minus the cost of making that one additional unit, i.e. cost of goods sold). I’m frankly a bit surprised – not just on this thread but elsewhere on this website – that many people seem unable to grasp the concept of overall development/marketing costs that need to be included in the profit equation for each model.
Now there are some high priced, high gross margin, low production volume cars that are not meant to make a profit. The business knows that barring some miracle sales demand, they will at best break-even but probably lose money on some attention-grabbing model that supposedly enhances the brand overall. The Dodge Viper I believe would be an example of that, a car that is expected to lose money (when all costs are presented), but which supposedly adds a “coolness factor” to Dodge and enables them to sell more Chargers, Challengers, Darts, etc. because some people want to be associated with the Viper, even though they don’t actually own one.
Also, Cadillac apparently thought that the XLR would be at best a break-even model that somehow would enhance Cadillac’s overall line-up. But losing money on low-volume “ultra exclusive” cars is not a profit model, no matter how high the gross profit margin! For Cadillac to be profitable, they are going to have to have volume beyond what some snooty “I don’t want anyone else to have MY car” exclusivists would prefer.
No problem Drew.
Now to your comment. I can’t speak for scott3, but I have not meant to imply that Cadillac lost it’s swagger in the 70’s (or earlier). I do think that it had less swagger in the 70’s then before and it’s public perception of quality and brand cachet greatly diminished during the 80’s. By 1990, Cadillac was well overdue to release any vehicle that would restore it’s ability to be viewed again as the “Standard of the World”. 1990 is still considered ‘decades ago’ technically.
I have an Engineering Degree (BS Mechanical Engineering OSU, 2000) and took an engineering economics course. I mentioned profit/unit. A higher profit per unit allows you to recoup the development cost at a faster rate. To put some purely hypothetical numbers to illustrate my point:
Scenario A:
Profit/unit = $5,000. Vehicles sold in year X = 15,000. gross profit = $75M.
Scenario B:
Profit/unit = $10,000. Vehicles sold in year X = 10,000. gross profit = $100M.
I don’t know the actual figures for Cadillac, but they are reporting increased profits despite lower sales volumes, so it appears that their approach to restricting volumes and raising transaction prices is paying off.
Searching for volume did not work out for them and has been demonstrated through the years to be detrimental when they needed to discount costs to achieve the volume.
Exclusivity:
Cadillac is not the car for the everyman. If you want that, you can find a Chevrolet which has every option to satisfy the average American.(emphasis on average as that seems to be the focus of your argument against Cadillac reaching upward in price or status).
Cadillac is marketed for those NOT of the average. It’s for those who are willing and able to pay a premium to show off their individuality. The goal is only exclusionary in the same way Morton’s Steakhouse, Sak’s 5th Avenue, Louis Vuitton, etc are. They are aspirational rewards for those who dare to reach a higher level of achievement. It’s NOT about putting others down. It’s NOT about “I don’t want anyone else to have MY car” (selfishness/insecurity). It IS about “I am successful and I want my vehicle to be a reflection of that achievement.” (pride/fulfillment)) Two very different statements.
>> It’s NOT about “I don’t want anyone else to have MY car” (selfishness/insecurity). It IS about “I am successful and I want my vehicle to be a reflection of that achievement.” (pride/fulfillment)) Two very different statements.<<
It's actually hard for me to see a big difference there. What I would ask is "Would you make this purchase if no one else would ever know you had it?". In the case of a Rolex watch, it's almost certainly no; to my thinking that is the ultimate pure status symbol. In the case of certain expensive cars, I think a lot of people feel it's a combination of enjoying the ride/amenities and having a status symbol of pride.
While I don't see Cadillac as an "everyman's" car like a Chevrolet, I don't understand this push to make it even more exclusive than it is now, or had been in the recent past. Do I think they should ever go back to a car like the Cimarron (rebadged Cavalier, which at that time was Chevy's cheapest car)? No of course not. Actually I think the current ATS is not "Cadillac like" enough, in that it's too small overall, has way too small a back seat, and has much too hard a ride to be a real Cadillac. There's no reason that the lowly Toyota Corolla should have a back seat with 8" more legroom and a nicer ride than any Cadillac. But that's a bit off topic.
What a lot of people here are not recognizing is that Americans have gotten richer overall. The "shrinking middle class" is in large part due to the "growing upper class". Not that I am into classes, but if you want to segregate people by income/wealth then the demographics say that the wealthy class is much bigger than in the past. And if a larger segment of the public can now afford Cadillacs, what's wrong with that and how is it bad for GM?
Personally I'd be perfectly happy if everyone could afford a car as nice as mine (currently that means a DTS premium). I'm not saying that this should be an entitlement for all (I'm definitely not a socialist), but if everyone studies, works, and is as productive as I am, what do I care that they can all afford the same car I drive? And if they all happen to choose the same car I like, then good for them – that means they have good taste. I am not going to say "Egad, my plumber drives the same car I do, and we CAN'T have that!".
As to production volumes and profits, I realize that de Nysschen seems to think that raising prices and thus making Cadillac more "exclusive" will add to Cadillac snob appeal and increase gross margins. But diminishing your sales volume is very hard to overcome via gross profit per car, when you have models that cost billions to develop. Look at the XLR, Cadillac charged over $110k per unit, the gross margins must have been huge. But they still almost certainly lost money, considering the development/tooling costs had to be offset by barely 3,000 sales per year. Probably the Toyota Camry cost the same or less to develop than the XLR, yet that sells over 400,000 units per year in the USA alone – which one do you think is more profitable overall, even though the XLR surely had much higher gross margins?
Again I'm not saying Cadillac should try to be Toyota. It's Cadillac, it is and always will be GM's best brand. The typical Cadillac sedan starts at north of $50k now. That's not an "everyman" car like Chevy. But why does it have to be a $100k+ car like the Mercedes S-Class, or a $300k (or whatever it is) for Rolls Royce and Bentley? Now sure, I like the idea of many people being able to enjoy the merits of a true Cadillac, you prefer it to be fewer, but regardless of that – GM needs to make a decision on the right price points to maximize overall profits. I happen to think Cadillac will make more money for GM by making really great cars that are semi-affordable to the top 10-15% or so. Others seem to think the best path to profits is charging a lot more, adding marginal improvements like gold plated turn signals, and being exclusive to the top 1% only. We'll just have to agree to disagree about that.
The truth is in the automotive world swagger is attitude and how a car reflects upon the owner. It is how the car and the owner are perceived.
Lets put it this way. A Buick GN with the black paint appears aggressive and it was popular due to this. It instilled in the owner the feeling he was going to give an Automotive punch to someone.
As for Cadillac of the 70’s they were considered large inefficient cars that were rusting out quickly with cheap interiors. Selling them used was difficult and for a while it became a joke how you could buy a used Cadillac for less than a used import.
People saw little value in these cars and it only declined from there.
Cadillac used to extrude the image of success on the owner but it had declined to the point just about anyone could have one and if you sold Mary Kay they would paint it Pink for you.
When I was in School I worked part time at a gas station in a bad part of town. We had a Bar owner next door that still was a Cadillac man. He had a new Barritz. He was such a classy guy. When we clean the parking lot with a fire hose he would ask us to wash it off with a Fire Hose. Real trailer park stuff here.
At the time people were slowly walking away from Lincoln and Cadillac and looking for the next thing and it was the German cars.
Some went to British cars as I had two business owners go to Jag and Rolls but quality issues haunted them and both went to Benz.
We had many business owners and large company executives come in from the heads of Firestone, BFG and Mcneil corporation and we watched them all slowly leave the American Luxury camps.
Like one owner of a 450 SEL he only had to replace an exhaust, tires and brake pads in 150,000 miles. He never took care of the car as he would wipe the dirt from the plate to just add the sticker. He got what he wanted a vehicle he did only oil changes on and no issues. It was a Diesel too hence the dirt on the plate.
As for the camper thing it was big in the mid west as Cadillac were easy to buy and dirt cheap. Even in the 60’s they would do it then. I saw them at carnivals, race tracks and many sitting abandon in yards as once they broke they were not worth fixing.
People saw no value in these cars and they held no special image to them or for them.
Swagger has no price tag. It can be a high priced car or cheap car but it is how the image is relayed to and on the customer.
Kind of like a 911 vs 944. It was an old joke but it rung true. The 944 image was that it screamed I could not afford the 911. But yet people bought many 944 Turbo’s and many were seen to hold much swagger over a Mustang GT that screamed I can not afford a 944.
Swagger is for the automotive self concise. You can not bag it up or put it in a box. It has to be created and nurtured.
The whole Ultimate Driving Machine promotion sold a hell of a lot of cars and applied value in the eyes of many.
The way you control the image of the car is you control the way people see and perceive the car.
Lets face it even a Soul has swagger because they sold an image people could attached to.
When a car holds little value or an image in decline. Sales, drop, used sales drop and people make campers or too often let them rot as they park outside the trailer park rec hall.
Pontiac knew how to sell swagger. GM just did not know how to deal with Pontiac. They removed from Pontiac what it really meant to be Pontiac and they died. Come on they removed the Firebird and tried to sell it as the GM performance division with just a FWD GTP and SSEI? Lutz had a fit when he got there but by then they had no money and it was too late.
If that caddy-camper is an accurate manifestation of swagger, then I will be content without said swagger.
I bet by 2025 Cadillac will have its swagger back .with all-electric powered engines.
What an ugly abortion. Someone had a few too many and this is the result.