Umm.. a slight correction here. 22 years before the Viper’s debut in 1992 would have been 1970. While both cars were rated at 400 hp, the Cad’s 500 was still rated in gross HP. The horsepower rating system changed in ‘72 to net HP. The gross rating was often made with no accessories, belts, transmission, or other power robbers attached to the motor on a dyno run. Net HP was determined by testing the engine as it would be found in the vehicle, with all accessories installed and working, including things like A/C compressors. Net vs. gross numbers tend to yield up to a 30% difference in output. The Caddy 500 is a torque monster for sure. No question. If you compare the ‘70 500, against the ‘72 500, you’ll have a much more accurate idea of what’s going on here. In ‘70 the 500 made 400 HP, and 550 ft lbs (gross) while the ‘72 500 made 235 HP and 385 ft lbs (net). The ‘71 wasn’t listed in my book, or I’d use those figures against the ‘72. At any rate, it’s not fair to say that the wild power claims of any American manufacturer during the muscle car era pre ‘72 are anything to hold as a truth. Especially when the rocker arm setup in a 500 Cadillac was never designed to stay together above about 4000 rpm. The rockers were held in place laterally by a small amount of tension provided by a guide to keep them from walking off the ends of the shaft. I’d include a photo, but the KZfaq comment experience dictates that you will have to image search “stock Cadillac 500 rocker stands” for yourself to understand what a terrible setup it was.

@@RichMander1 You are still comparing apples with pears, granted the 1970 was rated on gross horsepower, but all subsequent years had genuinely reduced horsepower as emission and smog equipment was loaded on and compression and carburation reduced. The 1970 was the most powerful 500 that Cadillac produced.

More Perspective yes that 400hp was Gross, with Net being more like 245-275, and the 0 to 60 being a Lackluster 7.5-8sec with a 17sec 1/4 mile....Slow for sure by today's Standards...

@@brianaugust1594 Anyone who has ever driven a proper running '70 will tell you, those 0 to 60 numbers are well over rated.

And this was one of the smaller and lighter-weight ones compared to the first seven generations!

Dubbed the "Razorback Cadillac."

Does it have a good AC system? To ride in a hot state like California do you think it’s a good choice?

They are cool!

Will you someday sell your Cadillac eldorado

@@theincrediblehulk5797 It's in the UK.....are you?

@@simonoldroyd5037 aw man I’m not I’m in the us

The Eldo had a faster steering ratio than most GMs.

I agree. They were very good handling cars although the ride was not on par with lesser Cadillac models or other luxury cars of the era and that was due to the rear suspension and is a noted design deficiency, wasn't a bad ride but you can tell instantly the deVille has a smoother ride. The Toronado had the same issue.

Let's not forget the Buick Riviera

@@SaleProofCarReviews Yes, but the Riv joined the (downsized) Front-wheel-drive platform in 1979. The big boats (like the famous boat-tail 1971-1973) were rear-wheel-drive.

Thank you! I'm pretty tense whenever I drive someone else's car, I don't want to break anything!

I'm glad you found what you were looking for!

Demand is thin and supply is adequate.

That sounds about right! I'm assuming he owned the car for some time or bought it used as the first Star Wars movie came out in 77

@@SaleProofCarReviews I think He bought it in 72' and I think He sold it in 83' I loved that car!

If it was a '66 it was a 429cu

The 472 was introduced in 1968. Caddys from 1966 had 429s.

T-Bird had the 'roll- back" rear window in first in 1967. ( along with the 67 Eldorado)

The Mark III, Thunderbird and Riviera had coil springs all the way around and rode better than the Eldorado and Toronado which had torsion bar front and leaf spring rear suspension which rode harder.

@@trucking604 True!

The Eldo was really a sport model. Way faster than the other Cads and the magazines of the time said it handled pretty well. Not your grandmas Cad.

​@trucking604 and they used a single rear leaf spring. Instead of multi-leaf.. so yes they rode very hard which was a disappointment. Manyi El Dorado owners switch back to the regular Cadillac models for a better ride.

I noticed too. These cars are not that rare so at least it could be correct.

I didn't know that! Thank you for sharing. I think it's one of the coolest details

As did the 72-75 Mark IV & 67-69 Thunderbirds.

They do look better though.

Yes I am, and I do not sell cars regularly on any online platform

Great question. It looks like there were bucket seats available as an option as well as bench seats like in the car filmed. There were various other trim options to differentiate cars. I found this resource online which was pretty detailed and helpful automotivemileposts.com/eldo1970optionalequipment.html

Base had cloth seats, optional leather bench or optional bucket seats. I think very, very early 70's might of had some carry over from the 69. The steering wheel and wood was different, gas gauge was different, the dash had an Eldorado badge on the 70, the 69 just had a Cadillac badge, other than that they were identical to the 69.

70 is more mechanically sound and the one with the 500 engine. Probably better interior although I am not that familiar with the 68. The 67 was not good.

Sounds about right

Good catch

Not in my experience. They are built like a tank.

These cars were the absolute best you could buy, they were extremely well engineered cars and I've never heard of any issues related to the front wheels. Different story if you mash it all the time, you could easily burn the front tires off.

My favourite Eldorado. You have a beaut, sir.

@@johanbrand8601 thank you so much

The 1972 has 8:5 to 1 compression. The 1970 has 10:1 compression which nets it at approximately 270 bhp.

They had been neutered in '71 and later years to meet CAFE standards. I had a 1973.

I'd love to film both!

I will say 16 mpg freeway. Better than a lot of new trucks. The 429s will get an honest 18-19 mpg.

The mileage wasn't great by any stretch of the imagination but it wasn't alarmingly horrible either, not for what it offered. I've had newer trucks that got worse mileage.

Man I felt my legs stretching just reading that

Small engines, bad brakes old lady interior, too many doo dads on the outside, unreliable hidden headlites. No thanks.

Compared to new trucks its an economy car.