(first posted 3/19/2012 as a rebuttal to my Deadly Sin on the same car)
I’ll say this upfront so you’ll better understand my position: This is my favorite car of all time.
Some crazed German Austrian automotive writer (who is bound to pop up sooner or later) told me that he believes the 1980-85 Cadillac Seville is one of GM’s Deadly Sins. After I regained consciousness, I informed him he was crazy and that the Seville is quite righteous. So, to make a long story very slightly shorter, we have agreed to make our respective cases in dueling Curbside Classic fashion, and this is my assault.
En garde, sir:
My competitor was kind enough to spot me the ability to use any pictures I liked, while he will use ones of some crusty old Seville he found in Eugene with moss and possibly some hippie crazy daisies stuck to it. While I hardly believe the Seville will need the extra help provided by photos of pristine examples, I also believe in using all available resources. Put differently, I really want this car to win you over, and I really want to win.
Mechanically, the Seville was let down for most of its run primarily by a slate of engines consisting almost entirely of genuinely awful, underdeveloped designs. Only the 368 cubic inch engine for 1980 was worth having at all, at least, that is, prior to being ruined the following year with a grafted-on variable displacement technology Cadillac named the V8-6-4. The V8-6-4 was too frequently a V-5-8-3-G-D-@-*-!-F-F-F and was not known for the smoothness or reliability expected of a Cadillac engine. It was so godawful, in fact, that it was dropped after only a single year! (How often does that happen??)
Unfortunately, the other engine choices after 1980 were a now-rareish 4.1 liter Buick V6(!), the head-bolt-stretching Oldsmobile 350 Diesel, or Cadillac’s own dreaded HT4100 baby V8. The less said about these last two boat anchors, the better. The gasoline Olds 350 was available for the first year or two only, and only in California, sadly.
As bad as these engines were, they were in no way unique to the Seville, and that’s why I believe that Deadly Sin status should in no way be bestowed upon the Seville due to them. Every single Cadillac of this era (besides the craptastic Cimarron, which had an entirely different burden to bear) shared this line of engines, so if the Seville is a Deadly Sin because of rotten engines, so are all the other Caddies of this period. (On second thought, I may be tempting fate a bit too vigorously and the jaded German just might call every single Cadillac made in the first half of the 1980s a Deadly Sin!)
Badinkadink.
Well, I’ve stalled long enough. If I must address the Seville’s bobbed butt, I’ll just say that it’s an acquired taste, and its charm is greatly influenced by the ride height of the rear suspension, options such as artificial tops, and paint choices.
This white example is as good a way as any to get a feel for the car’s natural lines before any vinyl or cloth tops or two-tone paint changes the feel of the trunk. While this car’s rear suspension is sitting at the correct, factory height, in my opinion this car should be lowered about 1.5″ in the rear. If you’ve ever seen one in my preferred state you know this does strange things to the rear camber, but it’s still worth it.
From this angle, the straight line from the top of the backlight down to the rear bumper feels especially harsh. Still, I think this rear treatment is more effective and cohesive than either the bustleback Continentals or Imperials of similar vintage.
This Eleganté model sports the two-tone paint that I think makes the rear look much better. Note ride height on this one is lower, and it helps, but it still needs to be ever so slightly lower.
As my Lincoln looks on, this pimptastic stretched custom Seville actually has a too low ride height, but too low is better than too high with this car. And with that, I am now realizing I may not be helping my case for the Seville as a classic by belaboring the point that it must have an inoperative load leveling system to look proper.
If you’re not an ass man, the interior of the Seville is a nice place to be. They have ample room without being absurd, and also they have that flat floor. This model is fairly restrained, but many were ordered with rather flamboyant interiors that more severely date the car than this one.
Sevilles also enjoyed (mostly) frameless windows, a favorite feature of mine on any car. (Note the oddball framed rear quarter window.)
Sevilles had plenty of buttons to press without feeling like an early ’90s Pontiac product. Note the very ritzy use of two different kinds of fake wood.
And with that, my fight for the Seville’s place in the CC pecking order is just about finished.
I realize the Seville is a polarizing design. I realize that (because of the engines) it’s a terrible mode of transportation. I even realize it isn’t built to the standard of the Cadillacs of the early 1960s and before. But it was bold, interesting, and even exotic at a time when very few cars were. Praise (Wayne) Kady, (Bill) Mitchell be upon him.
Alternate viewpoint:
CC 1980-1985 Cadillac Seville: GM’s DS #17 – From Halo to Devil’s Pitchfork PN
So, controversial styling, weak (and bad) engines, haphazard quality, and a dashboard which looked like it was designed by Radio Shack. Additionally, I suggest that anyone who who
old enoughin the target demographic for this Seville was old enough to have experience in a early 60’s Cadillac or Buick. What a disappointment.For comparison, below is a picture of the dash of a 65 Riviera – fifteen years earlier.
So: Deadly Sin.
When these first came out I could not believe how ugly they were. What was Cadillac thinking? I don’t think they sold all that well as I don’t remember seeing them much back in the day. I will admit the style has slowly grown on me, but I can’t remember when I last saw one actually on the road.
I see this Seville as an indication of Bill Mitchell, like this mentor Misterl at the end of this career, losing his way and feel for design. We call know what the late Earl years produced, i.e. ’58 Olds and Buicks. Fast forward twenty years, it seems as if Mitchell was also groping, looking rearward for inspiration. After all, even the first generation Seville was not much more than a knock-off of the Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow that had been around since 1966.
My very first car was a used 1984 Continental Valentino Edition. A 4-year old car with only 24K miles on it! I had loved this car, especially the 1984 Valentino model, since it’s introduction in 1982.
Yes, I also admired the 80-85 Seville, but the Continental just seemed more refined and dignified. Maybe it was the Valentino badges, idk.
Anyway, although this one isn’t mine, here it is…
And here’s the 1984 Continental Valentino rear decklid that everyone despises so much!
Personally, I never had a problem with Lincoln’s “spare tire” decklids from any generation Lincoln.
Much better balanced looks than the Seville, with the reliable RWD Ford mechanicals instead of an HT4100 – but my point about missing the market stands alongside the “what might have been” of a 4-door Mark VII.
I always loved this incarnation of the Seville. But then I also loved the Peugeot 504. I’m sensing a theme,
I drove my Sister and BIL to their honeymoon in an exact replica of the silver over black one pictured. A family friend, a used car dealer, loaned it to me for the wedding, and it allowed me to chauffeur them to their destination as a fun sendoff. Mind you, it was a new car at the time, and was a nice gesture on the friends part to allow a young guy use of the car. My recollections are that it was roomy, comfortable, smooth, and not at all bad to drive. Later drives of Cadillacs compare it well with cars of the day. It was smaller than the barges I have driven, like full sized 60’s and 70’s cars, and was nimble, but not a sports car, nor was it made to be. It did remind me most of my 77 Monte Carlo, only a lot nicer and more plush. Was it a DS? No, not really, just a side effect of all the sins of GM at that time.
I am here for moral support.
The 1980-81 Cadilac Seville is one of my all-time favorites too. The styling is classy and adventurous, putting it above any “luxury” car of today. The front clip is signature Cadillac. The rear bustle back is very striking. If you look at the car closely, you will notice that the entire width of the rear tapers in from the wheels to the bumper, giving it a lot of complex curves.
The interior is a work of art, with that supple and durable Sierra-grain leather, two kinds of fake wood and shag carpeting. It’s also nice to see the shifter where it belongs, on the column. This allows you to enjoy that totally flat floor. How can you say that the gauges and radio were an afterthought? Orange led displays with chrome buttons on smoked lucite? just gorgeous. Check out the radio knobs next time you see one. They are heavy chromed castings with gold-filled Cadillac wreaths on them. And how about that steering wheel? Thin, hard and smooth, with deep-grooves for your fingers. It also tilts and telescopes to any position you would want. So comfortable.
These cars go down the road really well. They have that cushy boulevard ride and low-effort power steering that are what luxury dreams are made of, but they feel way more planted to the road, thanks to 4-wheel independent suspension. The 368 has good power, but you will need to floor it on highway onramps. The brakes are excellent, being 4-wheel disc.
I have a 1980 Seville in cream with saddle leather. It is my second ’80. I have replaced many of the fuel injection sensors, injectors, fixed the rear level control and replaced the front filler panels. Otherwise, it is original.
The one negative is the power window system. The window is attached to the motor with a thick nylon tape drive. This is a failure prone system and is unconscionably hokey for GM’s flagship. Make sure your window regulators are well-greased to put the least strain on this system.
The Seville was one of the last GM cars to make a styling statement. It was the last hurrah for the Bill Mitchell era. American luxury cars really used to feel like rolling special occasions. Not so much any more.
My dad was a Cadillac man. He owned a Gen1 Seville, which our whole family enjoyed. By the time the Gen2 came out, I had moved out and was living on my own.
I remember driving by a Cadillac dealer and seeing the bustleback Seville on a turntable in front of the dealership. My first thought was, “They ruined the Seville!”
However, I must admit the design grew on me. Both Mom and Dad had Gen2 Sevilles eventually, as Dad had bought into a Cadillac dealership. Dad sold his for a Sedan DeVille but Mom kept hers. I used to drive it when I would visit them and it was a wonderful experience.
I was so ticked off when she told me she had sold the Seville. I wanted it.
Deadly sin? Engines, YES! Design and luxury? Not at all.
As the 101st comment, I may have a crack at an unmentioned thought. Front wheel drive was another of this car’s shortcomings.
Timing is everything, and 1980 was the year FWD went from being “exotic” in the GM play book to being the standard for the most plebeian cars. GM completely didn’t see that RWD was the future of luxury, and managed to destroy the Cadillac line with FWD (along with its other screw-ups) as the ’80s progressed.
For the record, I rather like the style of this Seville. It was very eye-catching when new; even my mother, a complete non car person, took notice (and liked it).
Imagine if it had been RWD, had great drive-trains and was well screwed together with quality interior materials. The entire direction of the auto market might have looked a bit different as the ’80s progressed. Mr. Mitchell’s opus might be regarded in an entirely different light – this car deserved better.
NO. Period. GM tries the neoclassic look and fails.
I read an article a long time ago claiming these look like a truck rammed the back end. I agree.
I’m no fan of the Imperial, either, but it’s better looking than one of these.
Love it. Sorry, but I do. Always have, always will, probably influenced by my owning the Hot Wheels version from an early age. That black/silver two-tone looks especially sharp!
Sure, the dashboard design has that unpleasant early 80’s blockiness, and the less said about the engines, the better. I could make do with the 368 though. So much missed execution, so much wrong with a car that could have been so right. And, still, I love it. It doesn’t have to make sense.
Love my ’84! Careful not to push Scarlett hard. I let my niece drive her one day and had to tell her to back off on the accelerator . . . pushing harder didn’t do anything. LOL. Also one of the first cars I remember in my youth as striking excitement. It was so different than anything else.
Growing up during the early 80s, I’d daydream being transported in a Gen-2 Seville to somewhere preppy and ritzy. But ’til this day, I’ve never ridden in one. Though, I had the pleasure of riding in a ’78 model that impressed me with its silky smooth suspension and luxurious leather interior.
The bustle-back Seville is a beautiful, elegant design that I could never stop gawking at every time I spotted one on the road. Its only flaw, I lamented, was the craftsmanship. American cars made during this period were extremely sloppy and Cadillac was not spared from this curse. I recall imagining the Japanese would assemble my custom Seville. Mind you, during the 80s, the Japanese cars exhibited the best craftsmanship with fewer jointed body parts and every body panel perfectly aligned and every gap precisely spaced apart in equal measure!! That was my dream Seville — perfectly made in Japan!
Of course, my Gen-2 Seville would be made by the Germans, if I were to put in my order today.
I had one of these, an ’85 , lowered, in navy blue with the carriage roof and Rolls Royce grill. It had the 4.1L V8, but DAMN it looked good sitting on the back of a flat bed truck on it’s way back to the dealer for yet another repair….
Allow me to be the first 2023 commenter to admit to really liking these, both when they came out when I was a child and now. Obviously terrible engines but in the right colors and without awful modifications I just found them to be three things GM cars of the mid-80s simply weren’t to my 10 year old eyes: Unique enough to be commented upon, appropriate to the target demographic, and appropriate to the brand.
Being too young to see a landscape filled with cars prior to the Sheer Look from GM, it was refreshing that it both looked like it belonged with that styling ethos but wasn’t obviously a Buick with a different grille. The Seville looked to me like a car a well-to-do older gentleman would drive (though why such a man is impressing 10 year olds would perhaps be looked into a little more these days) and lastly it looked like a Cadillac to me–maybe a little understated but with enough detail to make me think it was cut above.
Engines aside, I still wonder exactly what the critics of the 2nd generation Seville would have preferred? A mid-sized De Ville? Given the GM that existed and the technology they had, it seems like the only option would’ve been some smaller, anonymously styled “Cadillac” like the Catera. Given the Cimmaron of the same era, I feel like anything other than the Seville we got would’ve been far, far worse for the brand.
The target demographic of the Seville was younger buyers, not the greatest generation. The “older gentleman” was a shrinking market. Yes, at the time it was still quite sizeable, but this car was thoroughly incapable of taking sales away from Mercedes and BMW. That, along with horrendous engines are precisely what makes this a deadly sin. The Deville and Fleetwood were here for that older market, this was a gigantic swing and a miss. An entire generation of buyers never consider a Cadillac today, and this is one of many reasons why.
Sure the original Seville targeted the Euros but wasn’t that mantle taken up by the J-car Cimmaron? We’re looking at this forty years on, we know how the war went but if I’m just talking about strategy and not execution, then I’d say the idea was that the “sporty and competitive” J-car-based small Cadillac is the conquest car to get young yuppies into the showroom and the Seville with its unique style and elegance is the halo car to show what Cadillac could truly deliver. It’s not like the Eldorado wasn’t there if the styling wasn’t to one’s tastes.
The truth is GM of the 80s could not deliver a competitive small car, “luxury” or not, and any attempt at a halo car was going to be cursed with terrible engineering and lackluster build quality. That was simply all that GM could do by that point. I guess I’m just looking at it from the perspective that you could get what you got, which is a polarizing but at least complete execution of a unique design, or you could get what you got in 1985 which was an anonymous GM sedan with a Cadillac grille and pricetag that was more or less indistinguishable from an H-body. I feel like the former is an attempt to win and the latter is just giving up entirely.
Two deadly sins do not make a right. As for building a competitive small car, they were more than capable, they simply couldn’t stop treating small car customers like red headed step children and beta testers of their product. How in god’s name a team of executives couldn’t grasp that pissing off your customer with shoddy half baked product was not a winning strategy is beyond me.
I really prefer boldness to blah, and these were quite bold. The folks who put all the garish stuff on them, in some way they were honoring the boldness by adding even more, even if it’s not to one’s own taste. You kinda can admire that, in a way. When one of these make’s it’s way down the road, people, even today, turn their heads to look.
Of course, the mechanicals and various other crapola typical of late-1970’s GM and the subsequent 1980 Roger Smith era, were unfortunate – but not the fault of this car, which was still trying to rise above all that.
If these were built with the later 4500 or 4900 V8’s, and with a bit more attention to quality, they could have been the start of a way forward for Cadillac that would, perhaps, meet Mercedes and BMW but on its own terms, as Cadillac did in the 1950’s and early 1960’s. As it is, Cadillac took another XX years to find it’s way, if it ever has.
Too bad this is such an old story. But I’m still leaving my thoughts.
First, I am a Cadillac guy. I love them even today where they have little in common with what I feel is a true Cadillac. I’ve loved them since I was a young lad at age 10. And yes, I actually own a pristine low miles example of a 1988 Cimarron that I LOVE. With that said, my favorite years of Cadillac, even with the engines that weren’t that great, are the 1977 to 1988 years. I’ve even sold Cadillac’s for a total of 14 years starting in 1988. About the engines, I’m not one to dump on Cadillac about them as much as other. The V8-6-4 was a great engine if you just unplugged the part that made it change. By 1981, the diesel was a much better engine, and those who actually knew how to drive and maintain them normally loved them. Even the HT4100 was a solid engine from 1983 on and with the correct upkeep. I’ve seen many and owned a few of them with quite high miles with no problems.
Of the many Cadillac’s that I’ve owned, I’ve had more of this vintage Seville than any other. I had a solid light brown 1980, a yellow 1984 and a gray 1985. On top of that, I’ve had several other Seville’s (not bustle-back) and a few other Cadillac’s. I’ve had several with the diesel too. I’ve always liked them and had little to no problems even with high miles. But outside my beloved Cimarron, this style Seville is my all time favorite.
Looking at some photos posted, I have to ask “Was Cadillac’s greatest Deadly Sin some of the dealers themselves?”
Loading the cars up with tasteless dreck in pursuit of more profits, and causing massive prestige leak, to the point of making the product look like a laughing stock instead of a seriously prestigous automobile.
Sure these had lousy engines and sometimes iffy build quality from what I’ve read here, and they had some massive styling goofs over the years, but you didn’t see Merc and BMW dealers loading up their product with fake convertible roofs and fake spare tyres. Arguably they understood the concept of prestige better.
I’m not saying I love the style of these. I’m on the fence. I admire them for daring to be different, but their looks were too far out of the prestige mainstream. Like it or not the Germans were setting the style in the prestige segment – as we can now see from this end of history!
If they had been built properly and had competent engines, then maybe they’d have done better. That’s a sizeable maybe though, and shot through with Ifs. But as built, the unfamiliar styling was one more strike against Cadillac.
When I first saw one of these, I thought the back half had been cut off with a sawzall blade.
Words used in this article to describe this beast: godawful, rotten, strange, harsh, terrible, polarizing, oddball, severely, inoperative, and the best one, F-F-F!
Count me out. same goes for the bustleback Linc and Imperial too.
If a bit tongue in cheek, I believe you have won the argument, albeit for the other side. I was wondering if this had been an April 1 article.
The popularity of fake factory wire wheels ruined this car for me before the aftermarket vinyl tops and trunk spares did. The gen. Eldorado and Seville would look better with lower profile tires or a narrower track, too, because they stick out quite a bit more than was usual.
I didn’t know that many people in the world actually liked the bustleback styling, let alone those on CC alone. I recall when these came out, I wasn’t appalled, but instead just found them laughable. I mean, are you kidding? Ok, I’ve always had a bent towards euro cars, but visually, this one…
Styling is objective, to each his own, except, why are say the ’63 Vette and E type Jaguar so revered. As a Supreme Court justice once said about porno, I know it when I see it. These were not good looking cars.
Regarding the Diesel and maintenance. Pure irony, GM above all others made cars to survive with no maintenance. They may not have had legendary longevity, but they were the car to pick if you wanted to go 4 years between oil changes. So suddenly people had to keep up on them? What’s wrong with this picture?
These Sevilles are my dream cars, beautiful in every way. Again, styling is so subjective. I want to point out that these cars have much advanced engineering, 4 wheel independent suspension, 4 wheel disc brakes, a built in diagnostic feature, you can troubleshoot the engine electronics from the front seat without attaching a separate tool. By 81 the diesel was bulletproof, the 4100 would last with proper coolant additives, but I admit it’s way under powered for the size of the car. The front wheel drive engineering was way better than what GM offered earlier.
Opinions change Ive already commented on this thread and while I still arent a fan of these I did see one in all white that didnt look too bad the solid colour doesnt show the disjointed styling so badly, That particular car LHD was being cruised late at night and the early hours in a small town of Waipukerau I had to pass thru 4 times each night and I saw it twice no numberplates on display it occurred to me later it was a fresh used import either not yet been complied or failed compliance, so couldnt run around when cops could see it.
I bought one of these last year. A 1980 Elegante 5.7L gas from California. I loved these as a kid. I was raised in a Mercedes household and still am a Mercedes guy but the quirkiness of these always got me. Now that I own one, I love it…but.
They ride more like a 1960s car, floaty, it just doesn’t have enough umph powerwise. Ergonomics, odd switch here, odd switch there, power item here, manual item there. Don’t get me wrong, I find the car super charming, if anything I love it more now. But what were they thinking?.
The 350 CID gas should have umph. Maybe a tune up, check compression? The later 4100 is the one with no umph.
Or clogged catalytic converter. It is a California emissions car, so factory specs would reduce power.
New Cadillacs after this one went to a lower nose for aerodynamics which pretty much ended their distinctive formal look and power dome hood. They should have taken the mpg hit. The lines were less crisp, too, until the first CTS, which had too many.
I think it looks better without the curved side molding which became standard, and I suspect it would be even better without the fat chrome rocker moldings. Should have given it the STS treatment.
A whole era
I fell in love with the second gen Seville when I was 5 years old.
Fast forward to almost 42, and I have owned one for the last 4 years. There are things about it that are amazing, average, and bad. I wish the fit and finish of everything was like Ford was putting together in the ‘70’s. Notwithstanding, for me the hood far outweighs the bad. I find satisfaction every time I look at it. Even the v8-6-4 on my car works perfectly after 42 years and 118k miles. I do have a switch under the dash to shut it off. But every option on the car works. Can’t say that about a lot of cars from this era.
Born in the 1960s I remember these cars very well, and how people reacted. Most at the time, including myself as a teenager, considered the second generation “bustle-back” Seville to be a very classy car. Reminiscent of older Rolls-Royces, but modern at the same time. It was a very purposeful coherent integrated design with all the lines converging from the front to the back. So, it wasn’t just the back of the car that was different. It was the whole package, inside-out. The interior, too, was special. Traditional and modern both.
Many loved this car and wanted one, but most people couldn’t afford it. When people saw this car back in the early 1980s, they not only envied the owner’s wealth, but also their good taste. The second gen Seville outclassed so many other cars that cost more money. The car was later sabotaged by government regulations and engineering that just couldn’t accommodate it successfully.
Years ago I uploaded a coupe version that I photoshopped using Roxio Photosuite 4. I went looking for it today, but couldn’t find it. Here it is. To be honest it doesn’t work as well as the 1979-1985 Eldorado. One of my favorite cars. If I was rich, I’d be tempted to have a custom built Seville coupe just to mess with people.