Car magazines from back in the day tend to get stereotyped, with Road & Track commonly being called out for being very anti-Detroit. Well, it wasn’t quite as simple as that, as they had their set of criteria against which all cars were judged, and that tended to favor smaller cars and ones with good dynamic qualities which inherently favored smaller cars and imports. And they generally looked down on styling excesses. So one might assume they would excoriate this Diesel Seville.
Not so; they were a whole lot gentler on its styling than I was in one of my more acerbic GM Deadly Sins. Or is “acerbic” too weak a word? Not to worry; it’s not like R&T didn’t point out some significant shortcomings, most of all its sluggish acceleration (0-60 in 21 seconds), mediocre fuel economy (17.5 mpg) and noisy engine. So the title quote refers specifically to its standard diesel engine. Why bother?
R&T just didn’t get the point of a diesel Cadillac. Why put up with all of the shortcomings when the whole point of a Cadillac is to go wafting down the highway effortlessly and ever-so quietly? At least the gen1 Seville diesel they tested in 1978 still had somewhat acceptable acceleration (0-60 in 15.7 seconds). What happened?
Supposedly the 1980 emission standards were blamed by GM for the reason the Olds 5.7 diesel V8 lost almost 20% of its none-too ample power that year, dropping from 125hp in 1979 to 105hp in 1980. But curiously, all the Mercedes diesels actually increased their power in 1980, with the 240D going from 62 to 67 hp, the 300D from 77 to 83 hp, and the 300SD from 110 to 120 hp. Hmm…
The result was unfortunate. The Olds 5.7 diesel V8 was born with some inherent weaknesses that would soon doom it, but its performance was one of the brighter aspects, with 0-60 times of 15 to 17 seconds typical, depending on the weight of the vehicle. That was quicker than just about any other diesel, with the exception of the turbocharged Mercedes 300D/SD. Now it struggled, and not just in getting on that freeway ramp. Highway cruising where there were grades, even fairly mild ones, resulted in downshifts, with considerable engine noise, quite out of character for a Cadillac, even in 1980. And of course all this struggling with the 4255lbs of the Seville resulted in the mediocre fuel economy average of 17.5 mpg.
Of course R&T couldn’t foresee that the Seville’s engine travails were only to get worse, as in 1980 the quite satisfactory Olds 350 gas V8 and the Cadillac 368 V8 were both available, but they would fall by the wayside for the underwhelming 4.1 HT V8 and the Buick V6. And the fact that this generation of Seville sold some 40-50% less than the previous one.
R&T points out that Cadillac was clearly chasing the diesel Mercedes, which dominated the brand at this time of Peak Diesel, making the 5.7 diesel standard in the Seville whereas it cost $974 extra on other Cadillac models. Given the emasculated engines performance and economy, R&T suggests that “it seems to serve little purpose other than to force the rich to go slumming at truck stops”.
R&T agrees that the Seville’s new styling is “extremely controversial which in itself is most refreshing in these days of look-alike and forgettable cars”. True that, depending on your preference in refreshments. And you thought cars all look alike today? It’s a perpetual problem, since forever. So yes, the Seville stood out, for better or for worse.
The interior appointments were of course sybaritic, with all the comfort and power items available at the times. As to handling, obviously it suffered from being biased heavily to comfort and silence, at the expense of tight handling. Still, it was deemed to be “a fairly agile car, and much more so than its predecessor”. With 63% of its weight on the front wheels, understeer was of course strong when pushed harder into curves. But who was going to do that with a Seville? Nobody bought these borderline pimp-mobiles to drive fast down a curvy road.
In summation, the Seville had the usual Cadillac qualities of luxury and comfort, but lacked performance, smoothness of operation and silence. That’s not a passing grade, and that leaves aside the issue of its controversial styling.
Related CC reading:
Automotive History: 1978 Oldsmobile 5.7L Diesel V8 – GM’s Deadly Sin #34 – Premature Injeculation
Curbside Classic: 1980-85 Cadillac Seville – Context Is Everything
Curbside Classic: 1985 Cadillac Seville – I Just Don’t Care
They should have ordered the Touring Suspension if they really wanted to go fast.
As I recall, a major part of the attraction of diesel at that time was that its availability in shortages had been better (difficult for trucks to hoard it and fewer of them) and secondly that its price was lower. OTOH, MY1980 decisions must have been made before the ’79 gas crisis got bad or even started. I can’t remember the percentage of MBs that were diesel until the mid 80s, but it was huge, so Cadillac had to offer something.
Yes, the Touring Suspension magically increased acceleration. What a bargain!
With the Touring Suspension, it’s implied the driver can enter and enter turns faster, hence go faster.
They didn’t really complain about its cornering speed, but they did complain a lot about its acceleration and grade-climbing.
Paul, I was joking, lol.
Thank you for your comment.
While I thought this car was bad, SAD, joke when new, I enjoyed this Curbside Classic (as I usually do), and I commented below.
I was amused and taken aback by your direct comment, and thought I would give Ralph a little support in an amusing way.
CC is great, thank you for putting your vast car knowledge to good use for car enthusiasts and history buffs:)
I have never loved the styling, but I can’t begrudge Cadillac for stepping out with a unique idea. But this powertrain – ugh. Mass panic over a perceived emergency is a terrible thing.
I grew up in a time and culture where a Cadillac let everyone know you arrived. My tribe (blue collar immigrants for the most part) never could afford one, but in the extended family you were the schniz if you had a Chrysler or Buick…even if you bought it used.
When these came out, just about everyone was stunned and not in a good way. If they tried to read the east coast/west coast luxury markets correctly, Cadillac could have taken the Gen 1 Seville, heavily refined it even more to make a strong handling car, cut back on the gingerbread, and they could have had a competitive vehicle as a placeholder for another 5 years as they developed a whole new platform. But GM is gonna GM and I guess they didn’t want to piss off the blue hairs….
I’ve read and heard once and again that the 350 as (or was not) a converted gas engine, and that if it was it was or not important. I’m sure there’s been more than one article on this, and that this is a Deadly Sin, whether true or not. Can anybody share a link or the answer to that? Thanks! (In Uruguay, about 35 years ago there was a small industry converting 1.6 litre liquid refrigerated VW engines to diesel. If I remember well, the set included a new crankshaft, pistons, camshaft, cylinder sleeves, valves, and probably other odds and ends. The radiator used to be upgraded also, as were the ancilliaries. But, and it was a big but, you could keep your engine’s block number and just update the fuel type in the title. Anyway many people would swap the whole engine. As far as I remember, those engines would endure many km.
There’s an important distinction to be drawn here between “based on a gasoline engine” (in the sense of sharing significant amounts of tooling and architecture) and “converted from a gasoline engine” (in the sense of taking existing gasoline engines and making changes to allow them to burn diesel). The 350 diesel V-8 was the former, but not the latter (excepting development prototypes).
You’re technically correct, but it’s really mostly a semantic issue, as these two words are hard to keep from overlapping in their meaning in common usage. Realistically, it’s almost impossible to convert a gasoline engine to a diesel without involving significant development, most of all the cylinder head and most likely various internal components. I’m struggling to think of a diesel that was “converted” without the necessary changes that essentially makes it “based on a gasoline engine”.
The conversion Rafael speaks of would have required the components from a diesel VW engine, which was “based on a gasoline engine”. There’s no way to convert a VW gas engine to a diesel without those components, so to say “it was converted” is technically correct, but it’s also misleading. One could “convert” an Olds 350 block to a diesel using the parts from a diesel in the same way, but it too is misleading.
What I’m getting at is that using the term “converting a gas engine to a diesel” it intrinsically implies that if a manufacturer (or such) is doing that, it involves considerable development to do so. Hence I think it is equally correct to say that Olds “converted their gas 350 to a diesel” as it is to say that the diesel is based on the gas engine.
I guess so, but the point I was getting at is that the diesel block, heads, and accessories were different from the gasoline engines (not different enough, as it turned out, but different), so converting an already-manufactured existing gasoline engine to diesel would involve replacing it with a different if similar engine.
If I remember well, the set included a new crankshaft, pistons, camshaft, cylinder sleeves, valves, and probably other odds and ends. The radiator used to be upgraded also, as were the ancilliaries.
I’m a bit confused by this, as the single biggest difference between the gasoline and diesel VW engines was the cylinder head, which has to be very different. I don’t see why the cylinder would be sleeved. And diesels can actually use smaller radiators, as they throw off less excess heat.
I stand corrected. You are right, the head was changed. But I just called an old VW mechanic who used to do this to confirm if i was right, and it was that way, they were sleeved. I don’t have the knowledge to understand why. I didn’t ask for the radiator, so I might be wrong on that also.
I’ll take your word on the sleeving, but i can’t quite imagine why, since this was an iron block.
I have rebuilt many Rabbit diesels. They do not have sleeves.
Rafael, yes the 350 Olds diesel was a 350 gasoline Olds block. The idea was GM saved a lot of $$$ on tooling costs cause they were made on the same line. This also meant the diesel had the same number of head bolts as the gas motor. Not ideal with the very high compression of diesel engines. Blown head gaskets were one of many maladies that came with the Olds diesel experience
Thanks, Aaron! Clear description.
To illustrate the point, here are the gasoline and diesel head gaskets side by side.
But the 350 diesel block makes a stout block for a full race gas 350 Olds.
The Olds diesel is described as noisy. Imagine a gas 350 running and someone is gently shaking a Pringles can full of marbles while someone else keeps time playing castanets. That’s about what they sound like.
Of the three cars R&T compared, the Peugeot seems like a screaming deal. Too bad they couldn’t overcome parts availability and repair/training deficiencies. There must be a case study out there on why Peugeot, and every other French automaker for that matter, couldn’t establish and maintain a proper logistics system in North America.
“[Being a converted gasoline engine] is really of little consequence because in these days the engine normally lasts the life of the car anyway.”
I guess the Olds 350D wasn’t normal….
I wanted to like this car. For over a decade GM’s only FWD cars were the Eldorado and Toronado, cars in which FWD’s packaging advantages were irrelevant. With the downsized ’79 models of those cars (adding the Riviera) finally they were becoming practical and technologically up to date, even pushing things forward. If only they made them as 4-door sedans. Now with the Seville they did, and (I thought) we’d finally get a plush but practical luxury 4 door that could comfortably seat six with their belongings. With a gas V8 this was a car I really liked from the C pillar forward. That bustleback meant not only weird, discordant style, but also a noticeable reduction in luggage space from that sloped rear panel. Had they shaped the trunk are like the ’81 Imperial they could have kept the bustleback look even with a longer more squared off decklid. The look was passible on base 1980 models that didn’t have the drooping silver molding nor two-color paint, both de-emphasizing the bustle.
I recall you didn’t really get a choice of the two gas engines – it was Olds 350 in California and maybe high-altitude areas, Cadillac 368 everywhere else.
I agree about the molding and two tone, yet they were immensely popular. Someone should have made a squared-off fiberglass trunklid like the Beetle’s fake RR hood & grille. The one in the article looks better without those vulgar FWD wire wheel covers that ruined so many 80s cars for me.
I think the molding was standard equipment starting in 1981. Two-color paint was optional and may have been included with the d’Elegance package or whatever it was called.
GM themselves sort of made a squared-off trunk lid – they built up the trunk to “normal” proportions as camouflage used for testing prototype Sevilles before the 2nd-gen car was launched. Car and Driver printed a spy shot of this car looking this way around mid-1979; it may be the only car that looked better with camo than without it.
Yeah — I don’t think the 368 could meet California NOx limits. Also, Cadillac had committed to buying at least 300,000 of the Bendix injection systems, and I’m pretty sure they hadn’t hit that total yet, so I have a sneaking suspicion retaining the gasoline 350 was a way to use up their remaining production commitment. (The injected 368 had a new, cheaper throttle-body system.)
Especially as a diesel, these are machines of enduringly great comic awfulness. They look like some flamboyant set designer’s idea of what a mobile mausoleum might look like, and, by this R&T account, they move about as fast as one might too.
That said, I don’t know that they’re entirely removed in their amusement capacity from some latest Maserarrighini SUV, and for sure, their shapes could claim lineal descendancy. These new uglatrons aren’t averagely made or ill-handling or anything resembling slow, but they too are crass, and, in an ironical inversion of the GM car’s inadequacy, literally so over-endowed with speed that 90% of it is useless. They too, albeit at many times the adjusted price of the dear Caddy, are made for display to the world, display of your success, even though many a snickering onlooker thinks it displays something quite else.
I was a pretty avid car magazine reader in this era (though I was too young to drive). It took me a few years to realize that the “buff books” tended to be rather biased toward new cars in general, since they depended on autoamkers for their new cars.
I think Road and Track DID have an bias toward imported, European cars.
But I liked their road tests anyway
Car and Driver was my favorite. Their road tests were as good, but C/D was a little more irreverent and not as biased against American cars.
I also like Consumer Reports road tests.
I made a point to read all three.
As for this Seville, no disrespect to any fans of these cars, but I considered the ugliest American of my lifetime (until the Aztek came along), and a huge step backwards from the original Nova-derived Seville–in every respect.
Speaking of the original Seville, if I recall correctly, the Olds diesel V8 may have been offered on it in 1979. Perhaps some one here can confirm either way.
The Olds diesel V-8 was optional on the Seville from mid-1978, yes.
I just remembered, it was around 1980 or so, when C/D spoofed Consumer Reports, with a road test of a race car, I think a Lotus. I found it amusing at the time (I also like reading National Lampoon then, lol).
If I find it, is it permitted for me to take a picture or PDF and post it here?
Unfortunately for C/D, I don’t like new cars in general. The last new car that excited me was the manual trans Mk7 VW GTI, 2016-2021. I did get a used Jetta GLI, drove it for a year, got it out of my system, and sold it to my mechanic, win/win.
And I don’t enjoy C/D itself as much as I did even five years ago. In 1977, my dad subscribed for me, then I subscribed until last year, when I didn’t renew. Still, compared to what R/T and Consumer Reports have become, even more than in 1980, C/D remains my preferred car magazine (for new cars).
I’ve never owned any of these as “new”, but I’ve owned several bustle-back’s (gas) used and they were truly cars that you hated or loved. I began on the hated side and somehow over time moved over to the loved them side. I’ve owned several 1st gen Seville’s as well, again both in gas. These cars never let me down even with many miles on the clock.
As for the diesel? I’ve owned numerous of them as well. (In order of oldest to newest and not the order that I owned them) 1980 Park Avenue 2dr, 1981 Olds 98 Reg. sedan, 1982 Cadillac Sedan Deville and a 1984 Buick Century Limited with the 4.3 diesel. The Park Ave had the lowest miles at around 85K if I recall that many years ago. The Olds, Deville and Century all had well north of 100K when I purchased them. Yes, they were all noisy from the outside, but very quite inside at idle or cruising. The only time they became more noticable was under full throttle, but why? It didn’t do much good. I found that passing was planned and it did no good to floor it. You were much better off just stepping it down enough to downshift a gear and let it do it’s thing. As for MPG, I never tested the PA or Olds, but on a trip the Deville averaged 31.2 MPG on a constant drive with the A/C on. That’s good even in 2024. But that Century was the winner there. It was still comfortable, sort of quiet and on a trip from IL to MI, I got close to 40 MPG with two adults and luggage.
Lastly, I also owned a 1981 MB 300D (not turbo). It was slightly more fun to drive than the big GM diesels were. However, if you think the GM’s were slow, that 300D was the slowest car I’ve ever owned and it was as noisy outside and more noisy inside compared to the GM’s. Of them all, if I could go back and have any one of them, I’d take the 81 Olds 98. It was as comfortable as the Caddy, nicer looking due to the color and ran like a champ.
The 1980 Seville was always a head scratcher for me. The previous generation sold very well at a premium price. It was cheapish to produce because it was based on an existing GM platform and used a fuel injected version of the wonderful Oldsmobile Rocket V-8.
Then this monstrosity came along. I hated it even when new and the diesel was simply not enough engine for any car, let alone one with a big, fat price tag. No wonder sales went down the drain. The HT4100 that came along was only marginally better than the diesel, too.
There is a Motor Trend spy photo of a 1980 Seville prototype being road tested. It’s a three box design with a high back box. This was apparently a disguise
but the wedge-shape is a far superior look to the bustle back production model. I’d post the photo but I don’t know how to do that.
The $974 cost of the diesel in 1981 would be $3,365.27 in 2024 dollars. $1000 was a major add on to the price in 1981. Still diesel GM cars were popular early on. Then their poor repair record became known and the the supply and price of gas eased. They weren’t as popular anymore.
We have talked about GM stylist Wayne Kady here before, and to me the ’80 Seville is ‘peak Kady’. No question a number of Kady’s designs were successful, but I thought he sometimes tended to over-emphasize the rear of the car.
As for the 350 diesel, I think you could call it a ‘converted’ gasoline engine design. However, I think it’s important to note that the primary objective of basing a diesel engine on a gasoline engine design is not to share the maximum number of parts between the two, but to utiliized as much of the very expensive assembly line and tooling as possible. There is also the benefit of the diesel engine having the same ‘footprint’ of the gasoline engine, simplifiying installation in existing vehicles. For Oldsmobile to base a diesel engine off the 350 gasoline engine was actually a very sound concept, it’s just that the engine was initially underdeveloped. Later versions of the 5.7L diesel were quite reliable, as was the 4.3L V-6 diesel that was based on it.
Yeah, that’s what I was trying to get at. Tooling carryover was much more important than parts commonality. The designers said some of the reasoning was (quoting from the SAE paper):
The second gen Seville, was almost immediately popularly seen, as an old man’s car.
From my young teenager POV, I thought it was outrageous that both Chrysler and Ford followed with their own old-fashioned bustleback designs, in the Seville template. Though, I could understand it coming from Iacocca. A very difficult time, to be a domestic industry fan.
I’ve read in several places that the Imperial design was already in place before Chrysler designers saw what the new Seville would look like. This seems plausible, because I remember seeing line drawings of the car (such renderings were common in “cars of the future” previews in magazines back then) in 1979 before I ever saw such drawings of the Seville (and those I did see of the Seville got it wrong – these drawings ranged from spot-on to way off). The car was projected to be called La Scala at the time.
The Lincoln was harder to fathom given it appeared two years after the bustleback Seville, surely enough time to slightly modify the rear sheetmetal. Also strange was the chrome molding just below the beltline that, unlike the Seville’s, seemed not to even acknowledge the bustleback’s existance.
I theorized back in 2018, in an article here on the LTD II, that the LTD II may have helped inspire the design of the Imperial. Greenhouse, is very similar.
“Personally, I saw many similarities to the lines of the LTD II when the 1981 Imperial was introduced. I apologize as I am at work, and prepared this Photoshop extremely quickly. But look at the remarkable similarity between details of the profile of the Imperial and LTD II. I had to do very little work on the roof line, wheel arches and body sides. They matched up very well. I know it’s a rough Photoshop, but there is a resemblance that is uncanny.
I have no idea… this is entirely speculation on my part, but through Iacocca or Ford designers that went to Chrysler at the time, could the lines of the LTD II influenced the design of the 81 Imperial?”
The most direct influence on the 1981 Imperial was probably the Bob Marcks LeBaron Turbine concept car:
https://www.web.imperialclub.info/Yr/1981/Turbine/index.htm
Built by idiots for idiots.
Remember, this, the Vega, the 4.1, Northstar and ceasing production of the RWD Cutlass were done before DEI and Woke affirmative action.
All straight white male creations.
On several business trips in the early 80’s, I remember seeing an ad in the Houston Chronicle. For a flat fee, a garage would replace your GM V8 diesel with an Olds gasoline V8 and install all the auxiliary pieces as well. Something like a 60 day warranty was included. Would like to know how many took up the offer.
The significantly lower production numbers of the bustleback Seville have more to do with general economic conditions than unusual styling. Seville sales fell less sharply than C body sales in 1980. Sales increased as the economy improved. At the end of this generation of E body and Seville production, GM was running flat out to build E bodies and Sevilles and was limited by transmission production capacity. GM could have sold more Sevilles by building fewer E bodies. `
The Eldorado went through the same sales drop and recovery, which can’t be blamed on oddball styling. Downsized Eldorado sales dropped about 25 percent from 79 to 80. The 80 Seville dropped about 30 percent from 79.
I’m not sure if “straight white male” is the key variable in GMs decline. They were bested by their straight white male German counterparts afterall- who shifted the entire look of the automobile in a ‘Euro” direction. Maybe a female “car guy” at the head of GM would have resulted in a smarter response, but I doubt it.
Of course the Chinese are forging ahead with “military style” auto factories. That’s another way to come up with German workmanship, but I don’t think the woke UAW leadership would go for it, even were it constitutional.
I have to admit, calling its styling “controversial” is accurate. There were times when I thought the anal-probed look was goofy, then other times I thought it was cool. It was certainly more distinctive than its immediate predecessor, which looked like a gussied-up early-’80s Olds Cutlass sedan (I still think that Cadillac may have passed that shell down for Olds to use, like they did the ’67–’70 Eldo shell for the ’71 Toronado). But there’s no question that anal-probed look was a major influencer; just look at Chrysler’s short-lived attempt to revive the Imperial badge the following year, and then Lincoln’s replacement for the Versailles, the humpback Continental, the year after that.
To be fair, all cars made in that year were slugs, even the Corvettes. It’s funny how times change: Back then my grandmother’s ’67 Lincoln could run circles around just about anything made in 1980, and today my nearly-identical ’66 Lincoln is a slug compared to even the economy cars built today. But, with a nationally-mandated speed limit of 55 mph on the fastest highways back then (try explaining that history to kids today, that the speeds they do in suburbs now was a highway limit once), the listed 0–60 time was not that big a deal; heck, if you tried even going to 60 to verify that time, you’d get ticketed.
Ugly, anemic and expensive! What more could you ask for to condemn a car!?
I remember when these Sevilles came out. It threw everyone why they would so radically change the design when the previous model was doing so well. I thought the design was cool but the foibles if the drivetrains are legendary for this time….
but the 1980 to 1985 Sevilles were no comparison to the sales disaster of the 1986 Sevilles.
LOL….such a funny article about the slumming aspect of the diesel. I say this because my family had this 1980 model back in the day, and they would send the housekeeper to get the diesel so they wouldn’t have to be around some trucking area! (After this model, they switched back to getting Fleetwoods every 2 or 3 yrs.)