The Cadillac Celestiq Will Be as Rare as a Bugatti
No one expects the
Cadillac Celestiq
to be a big seller for the brand. It's a hand-built electric vehicle that costs $340,000, and it can take customers weeks or months to finalize the design. So Cadillac won't be popping them out like Escalades.
Tony Roma, Cadillac's chief engineer of performance cars, revealed in a recent episode of
Jay Leno's Garage
that the automaker doesn't expect to make more than 250 cars per year in the United States. 'This is super low volume,' Roma told Leno. 'We're not announcing the exact volume, but think more like hundreds, not thousands.'
For some context of the Celestiq's rarity, Bugatti plans to build just 250 examples of the
Tourbillon
, its V-16-powered hybrid hypercar.
The Celestiq is the car Cadillac plans to use to fight
Rolls-Royce
and
Bentley
—not easy targets. The automaker revealed the production version two-and-a-half years ago, showing off a sleek sedan with a longer wheelbase than the three-row
Escalade
.
The Celestiq is a flagship for
Cadillac
brand, with a pair of electric motors making an estimated 650 horsepower (more than previously announced), which will help motivate the 6,300-pound sedan. It's also an important car for General Motors, utilizing the automaker's new Ultium architecture that's underpinning a wide range of vehicles from the American automaker.
It has all the luxuries you'd expect from a
$340,000 sedan
—Super Cruise, air suspension, four-wheel steering, and tons of technology. It has a four-quadrant tinting panoramic roof, a pillar-to-pillar HD display, a 38-speaker sound system, heated armrests, and more.
The Celestiq looks production-ready in Leno's video, and
we rode one
last year. But don't expect to see them everywhere anytime soon.
Here's More Cadillac News:
Goodbye, Blackwing: Cadillac CT4 and CT5 Might Be Replaced by EVs
Dead: Cadillac XT6
Get the best news, reviews, columns, and more delivered straight to your inbox, daily.
back
Sign up
For more information, read our
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Use
.
Source:
Jay Leno's Garage / YouTube
via
GM Authority
Share this Story
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Reddit
WhatsApp
E-Mail
Got a tip for us? Email:
tips@motor1.com
Join the conversation
(
)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Digital Trends
7 hours ago
- Digital Trends
The perfect earbuds for your dad (or even you) are just $40 for a limited time
Recently, the staff has been collecting quality Father's Day gift deals — deals for fatherly gifts that you might not otherwise splurge on. One deal, in particular, is for the JBL Vibe Beam at $50, which is $10 less than its already attractive $60 price. They're pretty 'dadly' earbuds (more on that in a moment) and have a super attractive price point for anybody. Tap the button below to go check them out directly yourself or keep reading for our take on what has to be one of the best-priced headphone deals out there at the moment. Why you should buy the (very dadly) JBL Vibe Beam earbuds Hold with me. I'm about to argue that the JBL Vibe Beam are some of the dadliest (no, not deadliest, but good for Dad) earbuds out there right now. But keep an open mind, because they just might be perfect for you, too. The JBL Vibe Beam aim for a deep bass sound, and while that may conjure pictures of young people dancing to the beat, it's also worth noting that it's the higher tones that are the first to go as we age. They're IP54 rated (the buds, at least, the case is IPX2) which means they have enough dust resistance to handle being out in the garage and at least enough water resistance to handle a light rain or the demands of a jog or yard work. Plus, they have a killer battery life, with 8 hours of in-bud battery life and 24 hours of in-case battery life, so if Dad forgets to charge them here and there, it won't render them useless. Finally, it turns out JBL is about 80 years old, which means the brand recognition is already there. These are all arguments for buying the JBL Vibe Beam for your father while they're marked down to $40 instead of $50, but if you want some headphones that you can affordably roughhouse in, they might be right up your alley too. Check them out via the button below or check out our list of the best headphones for more gift ideas.
Motor 1
9 hours ago
- Motor 1
Why Carbon-Ceramic Brakes Are Expensive. And Why They Might Be Worth It
A couple of years ago, a Brembo engineer told me something that stuck: If you buy a car with carbon-ceramic brakes, you'll likely never need to replace the rotors. I'd heard the benefits of carbon-ceramic brakes talked up before, but this particularly bold claim seemed wild, an answer to the ultimate question: Are these fancy brakes worth their huge price tag? On the Cadillac CT5-V Blackwing, the carbon-ceramics are a $9,000 option; BMW charges $8,500; Porsche charges more than $9,000. Carbon-ceramic brakes are routinely among the priciest options for cars that already have a lot of big-ticket extras. Is there any world in which they're worth it? Welcome to The Rabbit Hole, a bi-weekly column where Senior Editor Chris Perkins explores his latest obsession with automotive technology. He speaks to the best in the business to understand how cars work and what the future of the automobile looks like. Photo by: Brembo Cast iron is a wonderful material for making brake discs. It's relatively cheap, easy to cast and machine into shape, and crucially, it has higher thermal conductivity than, say, steel. To perhaps state the obvious here, brakes convert a car's kinetic energy (forward motion) into heat via friction between the pad and rotor when the two come together. So a brake disc's thermal properties are of key importance. "[Cast-iron discs] have a better ability of absorbing the heat," explains Emanuele Bruletti, senior engineering manager for Brembo North America. "They can absorb it at a lower rate [than other common materials], and therefore, they can help in taking some of that away from the pads." It's the same reason cast iron makes for a great skillet, but if you cook with one, you know just how heavy it is. Weight is a car's enemy. So too is the increased demand on braking systems as cars evolve. This story was available to our newsletter subscribers before it hit the website. Want early access? Sign up below. back Sign up For more information, read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use . "What has been driving the size increase in braking systems in the last few years is basically the performance envelope increasing," Bruletti explains. Cars are simply more powerful and heavier. Tires also play a role. Bruletti says that modern developments in tires have allowed for far greater deceleration rates, further increasing the demand on a braking system. That increased demand translates to more heat. Upping the size of your cast-iron rotor helps deal with all that heat better and improves the brake's ability to effectively slow a car. For obvious reasons, though, you can only make rotors so big, both for packaging and weight. Brake rotors are unsprung, which means their mass has a disproportionately high effect on ride and handling relative to a car's sprung masses. They're also rotating masses, which have a big effect on a vehicle's ability to accelerate, brake, and turn. "If you can shave weight off your car and more importantly, unsprung weight and evenly more importantly unsprung rotating weight, which is what a rotor is, [there are] huge gains to be had in performance," says James Walker Jr., a racer, engineer, and author on a book about braking systems. Chasing lightness, Dunlop developed the first carbon-fiber reinforced carbon brakes for the Concorde in the 1960s, and by the 1980s, these became common in Formula 1. However, these carbon-carbon brakes, still in use at the top levels of motorsport, are entirely unsuitable for road use, as they don't work well at cold temperatures. They're also extremely expensive and time-consuming to make, even now. A carbon-reinforced silicon-carbide matrix brings some of the weight-saving benefits of carbon-carbon brakes, but in a package that actually works at cold temperatures. And while still expensive and time-consuming to make, a carbon-ceramic brake disc is a lot easier and cheaper to manufacture than a carbon-carbon disc. We're talking a production time of around a couple days vs four months here. (That said, Brembo can make a cast-iron disc in about two hours.) Photo by: Porsche Photo by: Ferrari German company SGL Carbon introduced carbon-ceramic brakes in a road car, with the 2001 Porsche 911 GT2. Brembo's first carbon-ceramic brakes arrived a year later, with the Ferrari Enzo. In 2009, SGL and Brembo formed a joint venture for the development and manufacture of carbon-ceramic brakes, and today, it's one of, if not the largest, suppliers of brakes of this type. Bruletti says the carbon-ceramic matrix it uses has about a third the density of its cast iron. In terms of actual weight savings, you see all sorts of numbers thrown out. A good example is the brake discs in the previous-generation M3 and M4. In a technical document, BMW quotes a 30.6-pound weight for the car's standard front rotors and 17.1 pounds for the carbon-ceramics. So nearly half. The proportional weight savings for the carbon-ceramic rear rotors on the old M3 and M4 are similar, and that's despite the fact that BMW's carbon discs were slightly larger than their cast-iron counterparts. So great! But, we also need to talk about what carbon-ceramic brakes don't do. As Walker explains, a brake system is, essentially, a series of hydraulic levers that turn the relatively light force the driver applies to the brake pedal into a huge force at the road that slows the car down. In a road car, a 20 to 30 pound pedal input can translate to 1G of deceleration. This is called gain. Here, carbon-ceramic brakes don't have an advantage. "There's nothing that's done with a carbon-ceramic system compared to a cast-iron system that increases the mechanical output of the brake system," Walker explains. "So there's no real advantage to them in that space. The only reason people say, 'Oh, they feel better, they stop better,' is not because it's carbon ceramic, it's because [the automaker has] tuned that carbon-ceramic system to have a higher gain." Taking things a step further, Walker also points out that the braking system is only as good as the tire you have attached to it. Imagine you could have two identical cars, on the same model tires, the only difference being that one has cast-iron brakes, the other has a carbon-ceramic brake package. The brakes don't change the level of grip the tire is capable of. On the flipside, and to Bruletti's earlier point, the tire has a profound effect on the energy that goes into the braking system. Photo by: Ferrari As we've established, a carbon-ceramic disc is materially very different from a cast-iron disc. Carbon-ceramic has a much lower level of thermal conductivity than iron, but also far less mass and heat capacity. Which is a good and bad thing. Good because the brake disc can withstand the higher temperatures that today's faster/heavier/grippier vehicles generate in extreme braking events, courtesy of that ceramic chemistry. Brembo says carbon-ceramic discs can comfortably operate between 1,000 and 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit and can even withstand temperatures beyond 1,800 degrees. That's why carbon-ceramic brakes are frequently praised for their resistance to fade on track. But since the lighter and less-dense carbon-ceramic rotors gain and lose temperature quickly, that leads to huge thermal stresses on the rest of the braking components as they heat and cool in rapid succession. A cast-iron rotor better contains its heat, which keeps everything else cool. "You need to find a way of dissipating that heat away from the pads in some other way, and this is where it becomes very important to provide the necessary cooling at the brake system," Bruletti says. Photo by: Porsche Photo by: Porsche Beyond carefully designed cooling from both external components and internal rotor ducting, the fact that carbon-ceramic rotors aren't made from a homogenous material also has implications . The length, diameter, and orientation of the individual carbon fibers all have an effect on the material's thermal capacity. Adding additional layers and coatings also improves thermal capacity, which is why Brembo and SGL offer CCB brakes with additional ceramic friction layers on both sides, and CCW brakes, which use five carbon-ceramic layers. These options allow automakers to size down components, further saving weight, but their manufacturing processes are more time-consuming and thus, expensive. That's helpful because generally, carbon-ceramic rotors are larger than their cast-iron equivalents, in cars where both are optional. This is a direct result of the heat a carbon-ceramic rotor reflects into the pad during large braking events. 'In order to guarantee a stability of the friction material, you need to go larger with the pad,' Bruletti explains. And when you make the pad larger, you make the caliper larger, and the rotor larger. It's all cyclical. Yet, there's also a virtuous cycle here. Reducing unsprung, rotational mass means there's less weight to control. In theory, an automaker can use the weight reduction from carbon-ceramic brakes to employ smaller tires, lower spring and damper rates, smaller anti-roll bars, and so on. Photo by: McLaren All because of the outsize effect that a brake rotor's weight has on the rest of the car. That's a big part of why Ferrari and McLaren only use carbon-ceramic brakes, beyond the simple need for a brake system that can handle the huge stresses these fast cars generate. And now, we get to the original claim, the thing that started me down this path. Does a carbon-ceramic rotor last the life of the car? Yes. In some cases. 'The wear of the components really depends on usage, how you use them,' Bruletti says. 'If we assume that the usage, the cycles will be the same, yes, it is fair to say that in normal driving and non-track usage, just everyday driving, a carbon ceramic rotor will last in my opinion almost the entire life of your vehicle.' It's not just the guy from Brembo saying that too. Walker agrees that in normal street use, a carbon-ceramic rotor will last a very long time. Obviously you'll need to replace pads, but the rotors could have incredible longevity. But add track use into the mix, and the calculus becomes very different. With lots of heavy braking events, the carbon fibers in a carbon-ceramic rotor will eventually burn out. They'll lose thermal capacity. At road speeds, this won't happen much, if at all, but depending on what sort of car you drive on track, what sort of tracks you go to, and how you drive it, the carbon fibers can burn out very quickly. Photo by: BMW Let's say you're running your new, 5,300-pound BMW M5 at Road America, where you'll regularly blow past 150 mph on the track's long straights. Let's also say you're one of the last of the late brakers, pushing your brake zones as deep into the corner as you dare, hitting the pedal as hard as you can. If you've got carbon brakes on, you shouldn't expect those rotors to last very long at all. But say you've got a Porsche 911 GT3, which weighs in around 3,330 pounds, and you're at Lime Rock Park, which has only one heavy braking zone. And let's also say that you're a bit more measured. Rather than braking hard and late, you brake a little lighter, a little earlier. In that case, you can reasonably expect a more life out of your carbon-ceramic rotors. That difference, though, is why Porsche still offers cast-iron rotors on its GT cars, even the mighty GT3 RS. It knows that some customers will use up their brakes tracking their cars often, and in that instance, it makes sense to go for cast-iron discs, which are much cheaper to replace. Some other things to consider: With usage, a carbon-ceramic rotor doesn't lose thickness like a cast-iron rotor, but when those carbon fibers burn out, they do decrease in weight. This means a carbon-ceramic rotor won't develop cracks or warp like a cast-iron rotor would on track, so there's another point in favor. It's also why the hats on many carbon-ceramic rotors list a minimum weight. Once the rotor goes below that weight, it's time for a replacement. So, there isn't a simple answer to whether carbon-ceramic brakes are 'worth it.' But given what we all now know, their high upfront cost can be offset by rotor longevity, and the myriad other benefits the technology brings. It becomes a question of you, the customer. How are you going to use your car, and what do you value at the end of the day? More Deep Dives Brake Dust Is a Problem. Brembo Has a Solution Why BMW's B58 Is a True Successor to the Toyota 2JZ Share this Story Facebook X LinkedIn Flipboard Reddit WhatsApp E-Mail Got a tip for us? Email: tips@ Join the conversation ( )
Motor Trend
13 hours ago
- Motor Trend
King of the Hill: 1968 Cadillac Eldorado vs. 1969 Lincoln Continental Mark III
[This story first appeared in the July/August 2006 issue of MotorTrend Classic] At the end of the 1960s, the luxury-car market was booming to the tune of about $2.5 billion and Detroit owned it. Audis, BMWs, and Mercedes-Benzes were well-built drivers' cars, but these bland-looking boxes were too small, Spartan, and harsh-riding to suit well-heeled Yanks, and Jaguar was busy earning a reputation for quality lapses. So great was the demand for luxury offerings—especially personal-luxury coupes and close-coupled sedans that lesser divisions of the Big Three were fielding flagships of their own: the Buick Riviera, the Olds Toronado, and even the once sporty Ford Thunderbird was becoming a limo. Cadillac and Lincoln clearly needed new blood to assert dominion over these pretenders to the throne. Cadillac decided to go cutting-edge techno with its offering, capitalizing on more than a decade's worth of research and development in front-drive technology. GM, Chrysler, and Ford all toyed with front-drive in the 1930s, with little to show for it. But by 1958, Cadillac had a running front drive prototype with a longitudinal engine. In 1959, Cadillac launched a program to create a spiritual successor for the opulent Eldorado Brougham, with front drive and the possibility of V-12 or V-16 power (see sidebar). Accommodating such a long engine required longitudinal engine placement, rather than the transverse arrangement Olds was developing for its compact front-driver at the time. Then in 1963, GM group vice president Ed Cole ordered Cadillac and Olds to consolidate their front-drive development and share the Buick Riviera's E-body architecture. The Olds Toronado arrived for 1966; the Cadillac trailed by a year while a new assembly line was built. Lincoln's Continental Mark III wasn't built as a hasty reaction to the Eldorado, but rather it was a Lee Iacocca brainstorm to leverage existing Thunderbird architecture and fill excess capacity in the Wixom, Michigan, plant where it was built, thereby cashing in on the personal luxo-coupe craze. The perimeter frame shares its 117.2-inch wheelbase with the four-door 'Bird, but the body is six inches longer. The passenger compartment rides farther aft on the chassis, making room for the regal six-foot prow that provides such a strong visual link with the proportions of the Mark II and the original Continental. Working with a conventional 460-cubic-inch V-8 and rear-drive architecture afforded Lincoln more time and resources to devote to refining its flagship. Extensive chassis reinforcements, rubber isolation of all engine and suspension mounting points, and 150 pounds of sound-deadening materials made the Mark III one of the quietest and smoothest riding cars available when it launched in April 1968. Now Cadillac and Lincoln each had new flagships, both of which decisively overshadowed the lesser-marque pretenders. In July 1970, Motor Trend arranged a meeting of the Cars That Would Be King. 'If you've got the American Dream, if your goal is to move all the way up from your Biscayne station wagon, then the Lincoln Continental Mark III and the Cadillac Eldorado are the end of Status Street. Top of the Heap. King of the Hill. But which one?' Hence was born a six-year serial road test. That first comparison consisted of just four columns of type on three pages, little of which was devoted to deep analysis of the cars' acceleration, braking, and handling, save for a few zingers like this: 'Now any clown who wants to take one of these cars to a road course and see what kind of violent under or oversteer he can force out of these immense, overly dampened, mushily sprung dinosaurs must be a little ding-a-ling.' That said, the Eldorado's variable-ratio steering proved more responsive, while each car's front-disc/rear-drum brakes performed equally well, with lots of fade. (Rudimentary rear-anti-lock systems on both cars were panned by many reviewers as ineffective.) In an unimaginable drag race, the 500-cubic-inch 1970 Eldorado edged the Mark III out by 0.4 second to 60 mph. (Eldo pink-slip racers note: Our testers brake-torqued a launch in second gear to prevent hellacious wheelspin.) Our comparison dwelled more on the luxury aspects of the two cars, finding the Eldorado's seats to be roomier but more fatiguing on long hauls, its gauges and switches easier to read and use, but less opulent looking, and its ride crisper and less luxurious. We crowned the Mark III King of the Hill owing to its superior plushness and luxury. That original comparison test generated bags of impassioned reader comment, so when Cadillac reskinned the Eldo for 1971, we reprised our King of the Hill comparo. The new styling didn't strike us as an improvement, and in most critical measures the cars shook out similarly. The fit, finish, and build quality of the Lincoln outshone the Cadillac's, and 'the Mark III still comes off like the family that has lived gracefully for years with its money, while the Eldo feels like 'nouveau riche,' trying so hard to tell the world it's wealthy.' Long live King Lincoln! Not. For 1972, the Mark III was replaced by the larger, even cushier Mark IV, and we devised an elaborate tech-heavy four-part analysis. Part one involved a week of in-town driving and an 800-mile road trip, during which the Eldorado offered laudable straight-line stability in contrast with the Mark IV's squirmy yaw on the freeway. Less fatiguing seats cinched the Eldo's lead in this segment. Next we examined resale value (advantage Lincoln), repair records (tie), interior space (Eldo best in front, Mark best in back) and noise levels (tie), and called the round a draw. Part III involved instrumented performance testing, which the Eldorado won decisively. Part IV was a staff straw-poll on styling, which the Lincoln swept almost unanimously. But having won two of the four categories, the Cadillac succeeded in seizing the King's crown from Lincoln. Both cars were largely carried over in 1973 so we devoted the pages to a State-of-the-Luxury-Car-Union address, noting that while the strong-performing Cadillac retained its crown, the posh and stylish Lincoln was winning the sales war. Maybe we were losing interest, but our 1974 installment in the drama was so mired in a painful knights-of-the-round-table thematic device that details are difficult to mine, but while the Eldorado got better gas mileage, the Mark IV was now faster, and it still rode smoother, and so it won back the crown. Our final installment was renamed 'The King's Ransom Road Test' and was expanded to include a Chrysler Imperial coupe. The story also included a parallel test of the top sedans from BMW, Jaguar, and Mercedes-Benz. On the domestic side, the Mark IV was deemed quietest, the Eldorado the quickest, and the Imperial the best in handling and braking. The official winner? 'None of the above.' Our editors had caught a whiff of the svelte new Euro-firm Cadillac Seville, and, even though it wasn't tested, we predicted it would be the new King of Both Hills. How have the original contenders for the crown stood the test of time? To answer the question, Sandy Edelstein and Scott King bought one of each, both built with the rare vinyl-top delete options, and let us take them for a spin. The cars are in exceptional condition, and each has a unique character. The Cadillac's sharp-edged design is by far the most interesting to new-millennium eyes, while the Continental Mark III—especially in steel-topped guise—harks faithfully to the fabulous Mark II. Both cars accelerate effortlessly, with little audible report from the engine room. Neither offers even a modicum of steering feel or feedback, but the Cadillac responds to its helm more quickly and directly, and its brakes seem less vague and remote. The Eldorado's suspension filters out less of the road's rumbles and bumps, leaving a slightly crusty ride quality. By contrast, the Lincoln approximates a wheeled isolation tank as closely as any 1969 car ever did. It wafts over road imperfections without squeaking or rattling, though this may say more about its low mileage (34,000 to the Eldo's 86,000) than about its original assembly quality. The view down each car's immense hood certainly puts one in an imperial frame of mind. The Cadillac's bow is dominated by a coffin-shaped central bulge; the Mark's is bordered by chrome-topped fences. The Eldorado's minimalist interior furnishings, though dressed up with real wood accents, can't compare with the Lincoln's classy neo-Duesenberg cabin. After a day spent swapping back and forth between the cars, the descent from the high desert above Palm Springs in the Mark III with the A/C cranked and Old Blue-Eyes crooning through the ($245.30) StereoSonic AM/8-Track five-speaker Hi-Fi validated our original decision, so we hereby re-crown the Lincoln Continental Mark III, King of the (1969-1970) Hill. Would the edgy Eldorado have been crowned king with a V-12 or V-16 snuggled under that mile-long hood? Sure seems likely, and it almost happened. One idea was to marry two small-block V-8s to form a 530-cube V-16. This concept received little development, but GM engineering staff progressed through several generations of development and durability testing of a 500-cubic-inch 90-degree SOHC 24-valve V-12 with 30-degree offset crankshaft pins. Few details have ever been released about this so-called 'V-future' engine that was intended to proliferate throughout the Cadillac range, starting with the Eldorado. Early versions of the aluminum-block engine had iron cylinder liners, but later iterations employed an innovative die-casting of high-silicon aluminum intended to run without sleeves. On second thought, maybe it's just as well that this technology was tested on the Vega. 1969 Lincoln Continental Mark III: The IV-Door The Mark III was a runaway sales success, outselling the original Continental and Mark II combined before the end of 1968 and besting Eldorado sales by 20 percent. Might Lincoln have moved even more metal with a four-door? Maybe. An early prototype of a reskinned Thunderbird was shot down, but another true Mark III four-door is rumored to have been built, possibly for Henry Ford II. Little is known about that car, but word of its existence may have leaked out to Martin-Marietta boss Grover Hermann—he contacted Ford to request a four-door Mark of his own. Ford farmed the work out to Lehmann-Peterson and Moloney Coachworks, who charged $13,325 to stretch the body and frame 7.3 inches and custom-fit suicide doors, adding over 700 pounds. Current owner Phil G.D. Schaefer reports that the body remains as tight and quiet as a coupe's. Ask the Guys who Own Them Mortgage broker Sandy Edelstein and automotive product specialist Scott King collect coupes large (1958 Caddy) and small (Honda N600), none of which has a vinyl top. Why we like them: 'We both grew up around Cadillacs, and the cutting edge style of the first-gen front-drive Eldorado really imprinted on us. The Lincoln was irresistibly gorgeous, and with the ultra-rare steel top it seemed the perfect match for our Eldorado.' Why they're collectible: Each was the flagship, not only of its marque, but of its parent corporation. The Eldorado pushed the technological and styling envelopes, the Continental Mark III aimed to reprise the opulence and build quality of the 1956-1957 Mark II. Restoring/Maintaining: Production volumes were relatively high, and most parts are readily available from multiple sources. Beware: Rust attacks the rockers, trunk floor, and around the bottom of vinyl tops; check for filler in cars that have been repainted. Expect to pay: (Eldorado) Concours ready: $15,000; solid driver $7500; tired runner: $2500; (Continental Mark III) Concours ready: $15,750; solid driver $7500; tired runner: $4000 Join the Clubs: Cadillac & LaSalle club ( Lincoln & Continental Owners Club ( Our Take Then: So who is the King of the Hill? As long as there are Eldorado and Mark III owners around, cigar sales will continue to go up and no one will ever agree. The Eldorado has a lot of seemingly more advanced technical conveniences, but from a strictly plush, posh, luxury standpoint, the Mark III has the intimacy a car like this should offer.—Bill Sanders, MotorTrend , July 1970 Now: The Lincoln Continental and Cadillac Eldorado were built in a golden age before emissions and safety regs strangled engines and ham-strung car designers, yet after air-conditioning and disc brakes were popularized. So in many ways, no future car can hope to ever achieve the style and panache of these Kings of the Hill.
