Somehow it feels like we had a bit of a Cadillac Week (or was it a Week And A Half?) and it’s time to go out with a bang. Or bust, whatever the case may be. I checked and it’s been just over a year since I last singled out the Cadillac Cimarron for attention, but then these two showed up hand in hand recently and, well, the die sort of cast itself. While the Cadillac that perhaps should have just been a top Chevy trim level lasted for seven model years, there were a surprising number of changes made to it throughout that time. Here we have an example from the second year, 1983, and one from the second to last year, 1987, almost perfect bookends to production, to dissect and discuss.
I’ll keep the orientation the same throughout, with the 1983 on top and the 1987 on the bottom. For those that haven’t been paying any attention whatsoever, the Cimarron was famously introduced for the 1982 model year and from day one it was obvious that it was a Chevrolet Cavalier with all the gingerbread that arguably America’s top luxury brand could fling at it. There’s nothing wrong with a Cavalier (well, in this context at least, let’s save the reality for another day), but just adding bling and then doubling the price seemed to offend a lot of Americans and thus this car is considered one of the main contributors to Cadillac’s long decline.
Look at the top picture. Lose the Cadillac script and that’s a Cavalier. At first glance one might even ask when did GM start rendering the Cavalier badge in script, and unless one bothered to keep reading after the second letter (Ca…) it may have been left at that…Even GM realized it was just too close for comfort so the nose actually was noticeably changed twice during the production run. First from the original to an intermediate that we can’t see here that amazingly also looked a lot like the Cavalier’s, to what was the final version with the flush composite headlights and a very differently shaped grille.
My “favorite” is actually the unseen one from the middle years, it’s a little more aggressive than the original but not as bland as the final one here. So basically the entire bumper, grille, surround and headlights, even the spacing of the bumperettes, all different. I don’t know what happened to the hoods here, it seems both hood releases were broken and someone had to get all medieval on these two. Oy, if only someone would have made the wise decision to abort while it was obviously not viable back in the fall of 1981 a lot of pain, suffering, and cost might have been averted…but the old guard never looked ahead, to their consequent peril, and just blindly voted against that option without really taking the overall market into account.
Zooming out a little brings the side of the car into view, and well, obviously the sheetmetal is the same since there was only one generation, the front side markers went away with the wraparound ones integrated with the headlights, the car got lower cladding, and somehow looked a little beefier due to that. Good moves, the Cavalier didn’t get cladding beyond the Z24’s body kit but that was a different mission, thankfully Cadillac hadn’t discovered the letter “V” yet. Just imagine a 1983 Cimarron V69 package, you wouldn’t know if you were coming or going, ground effects and wings galore. Faux carbon fiber luggage racks!
So in the beginning to make sure a supermarket shopper didn’t mistake their Cavalier for this Cimarron, they were badged as such on the doors. When the cladding appeared, the badge disappeared. Magic! Where’d it go? Nobody knows! A bigger mystery though is this (and I really don’t know, I realized this later) – Is the lower cladding not made of plastic but actually able to rust as it appears to here? I’ll grant that neither of these specimens were exactly showroom fresh or looked particularly cared for and it’s impressive enough that they lasted this long, but that’s an interesting amount of ferrous oxide on that lower trim there. I think the blue car had spent a not inconsiderable amount of time on graveled roads with the lower corners shotblasted as a result.
The door handles never changed, they remained the same crappy poor-feeling parts-bin pieces for the duration and appear to be the same as used on a Chevy S-10 and almost every other GM car of the day. The trim atop the cladding may in fact be the same as well, creatively reused in this way four years later, but probably adding more cost in the process rather than using a slightly larger cladding piece from the beginning.
I was surprised to realize that the alloys on this ’83 were 13-inchers; while the BMW 320i of 1982 (the year of the Cimarron’s intro) also had 13s as did some other cars, by 1983 and the new 318i that went up to 14, as did/were most cars with either any kind of sporting intent or considered powerful enough that five-lug wheels were considered appropriate.
Of course by 1987 that had increased to 14″ on the Cimarron as well, but by this time many others were up to 15″ or even 16″ already. Disregarding the size, I think I prefer the older style wheel with the larger (missing here) center cap, but that’s not really saying much, a few different styles were available over the years, but always 13 or 14 inches in diameter depending on the year. Sidewall, schmidewall, either aim at the Euros or don’t. Ride and handling don’t have to be completely mutually exclusive.
Arrears we have the, uh, rears of the cars along with some bigger changes than obvious at first glance. First though, somehow the luggage rack managed to hang on to the trunk lid for the duration of the run, at least as an often- or usually-fitted optional extra. Cadillac in its early marketing materials considered as competition the Audi 5000, BMW 320i, Volvo GLE, and the Saab 900 sedan. While I think the Audi was a class too large with the 4000 being more appropriate and the BMW was only a 2-door, is it weird that I have never seen a luggage rack fitted to the trunk lid of any of those at any time over the last forty years? I’ve also never seen a piece of luggage on any trunk mounted luggage rack such as these. Huh. I think the existence of that alone is what kept many people from seriously considering the car, it was not a better idea. Heck I don’t recall other Cadillacs sporting them as a matter of course. WTF, Cadillac, why you gotta announce you’re fighting the Bavarians and then go all K-car? Spend that money on something better, not JC Whitney.
While the extruded bumper, side pieces and even the overriders seem to be the same, the tail lights certainly changed, not just in configuration but also in shape. Kudos to Cadillac for always having an amber section on the Cimarron, but a big boo for screwing it up on the older models and not wrapping the amber around to be visible from the side as on the later cars. Sometimes one might think there was never such a thing as GM Europe.
Did you realize the winged Cadillac crest changed between taillight designs? Wild. Were there other winged Cadillac crests, ever? Or is that meant to denote the V thingy under many of the older ones? Mary, Mary, Maaaarrrrryyyy, where are you Mary? Do you know, Mary? Oh yeah, I forgot, you were only 20 when this was released, you aren’t to blame. Someone will know. Still, the taillight crest is also a very American affectation. No, you don’t have to necessarily mimic the Europeans to compete with them, but then again, that is exactly what Cadillac did do in yet later years when the chase began in earnest. The chase, that is, without a target that was really aware of it or remotely concerned about it.
Take a look at that bumper though and compare it to a modern car. My goodness, there are a LOT of little pieces that all have to fit together somehow – the metal bumper, the corner piece, the black rub strip, the overrider, the body color spacer, the rub strip on the corner piece…Nowadays there seem to be more little pieces underneath the surface than on top of it but wow, that stuff kept someone very busy on the line. And of course, being the Cadillac, it had to have every single little add-on piece available.
Here, here’s some meat to go with the potatoes so far, the engine denotation on the decklid. 1983 only saw a 2.0l inline-4 being offered, while that was sort of an improvement on the wheezy 1.8 it debuted with a year earlier, somehow it managed to gain 200cc as well as fuel injection but still lose two horsepower. I have to scratch my head at that one, even the new math I was learning at the time in Algebra II doesn’t explain it. It seems like a bad trade, or someone got paid off, either way their brochures touted the larger engine but avoided mentioning the smaller pot of beans. Eventually the 2.8l V6 became an option and by 1987 it was the only engine offered. That seems good on the surface but it somehow only produced 125hp, by the mid-80s that was well off the number of ponies being herded along by most of the Europeans. And yes, the Europeans cost more but it was Cadillac that said their car could play with the Ausländer and touted the cost “savings”.
I’ll applaud the Cimarron for offering as standard a manual transmission (with a 3-speed auto as an optional extra). However that applause is more of a slow clap as in its first year that manual was a FOUR-speed, with the five debuting for ’83. A four-speed seems pretty weak sauce for a Cadillac, someone made an error there. A Tercel maybe, but not a Caddy. Actually the Tercel SR5 did have the five, no? I’ve not had the pleasure of rowing my own in any Cimarron or Cavalier so I’ll have to take your (Dear Reader’s) word for it that it’s not Honda smooth, but I can imagine. I don’t know the take rate of the manual, if brochure photos are indicative of reality it would seem to be about 90 percent, but I imagine it is not and that it’s closer to 9% if not POINT nine, probably being offered so that the base price of about twice the Cavalier’s base price didn’t seem even further off by having the automatic as standard. Coulda had a Cimarron SR5 and saved some coin, homey!
This gives a better idea of the side view, there’s no doubt that the later car looks better and more substantial, the cladding and the wraparound lights help tremendously here. And are things that if they had from day one would have (maybe) helped tremendously. Check out the wear behind the rear wheel of the blue car, impressive for a FWD car. I know the world wasn’t ready for it in the 1980s but they might as well have blown more money on a wagon version, they for sure missed a trick by not producing the convertible, with more than a couple being done aftermarket and maybe in that form being worth a little more. I may be going a little Stockholm Syndrome now, this is taking me longer to write than usual…recognizing it is the first step to stopping it…must…resist…
The trunk interiors are effectively the same, there are differences such as the cut around the hinge of the liner and even the inner stamping of the trunk lid itself, but those are both likely shared with the Chevy and the other J-bodies and constitute running changes. Both of these cars were produced in Janesville, Wisconsin, some earlier cars were also produced in South Gate (Los Angeles).
Here are those aforementioned engines, in case there’s any doubt I’d take the 2.8 V6 any day of the week but that’s faint praise, admittedly. I do kind of like the sound it makes though, at least in the Cav Z24. Not much else to say here beyond how it’s interesting how they managed to make a four look just as crammed in there as the V6. Let’s check out the inside next!
You’d think a Cadillac owner would keep their ride a little cleaner, but…no, I’m just KIDDING, PUT DOWN YOUR COMMENT FINGERS, CADILLAC OWNERS, I DIDN’T MEAN TO POKE THE BEAR, can’t you take a joke? That was close, I guess I did poke the bear just a little. Anyway, something obviously happened to these cars, I’m not judging. Well, maybe I am, but not on that. The interiors have a number of changes as well beyond just options but a lot was the same. The dash is the same, but look at the side of the center console, it’s very different with a cover panel on the older one and separately finished modules on the newer one.
The dash itself is different from the Cavalier, it’s somewhat nicer with fake stitching around the edges of it and the console areas. That shifter though, that’s just terrible. It is leather covered but the size and shape of it, it just exudes zero elegance and seems such a simple thing to alter that could make a huge visible difference. It may have been designed by the S-10 team. The base model S-10 team. The stitching on the TOP of the handle on the ’87 seems kinda naff as well, although it may well be considered fancier by some. Like carrying something made by Louis Vuitton with the logo plastered all over the outside rather than just tucked inside. New money vs old money, honey, can’t buy my love.
I don’t really love either steering wheel, but I’d be less likely to give the brown one up for adoption if forced to keep one. The brown one (the ’83) seems more driver focused. Well, as driver focused as anything with 86hp and a 3-speed auto can ever be. The blue one looks like someone at Cadillac saw a mid ’80s Toyota steering wheel and said “Hold my Faygo”.
The radios got a little more sophisticated, the climate controls went from levers to buttons, and the digital dash option makes an appearance here on the ’87. Other than that pretty much the same. A rectangle for everything and everything in its rectangle. Boring in 1983, boring-er in 1987.
It’s interesting not that both have fake aluminum dash panels (it’s just plastic, you didn’t think that $12k in 1983 got you real metal did you?) but that the older one looks to have sort of a brushed look and the newer one has more of a grid pattern. I consider the TRON-grid stuff as being passé by ’87 but maybe it would have been too ahead of its time in ’83. Cadillac made a big deal of having a standard tachometer in the Cimarron, with most being 3-speed automatics it’s kind of academic though unless you just plan to always manually hold first until the engine is about to explode and then repeat that in second…but then you would have just gotten the manual and yeah, I know, if we are back to getting a manual then you’d be driving Rachel to the hotel after the prom in the 325e anyway, dontcha know.
With only a five digit odo on the ’83 and no power on the ’87 we can’t accurately opine on the actual mileage of either, unfortunately, although my money is on under 100k for each, the seats are in too good of a condition for much more than that.
The headrests seem to be the same between years, and yes those are leather-faced seats, but the 1987 version is more complex and intricate than the older one. Not sure that’s for the better, seems like more places to have to clean your Newport cigarette butts out of (as opposed to KOOL butts for the older one, not that I checked. Again, not judging, 30% less tar is probably better!). The older seat though is more likely to appeal to the target market. Embroidered script on seats? Nein danke, verdammt nochmal, wo ist mein BMW?
I think we can all be perfectly objective and act like grown-ups and say that there isn’t much to choose between the back seats of either (although I prefer the simpler, non-embroidered brown ’83 one because it’s simply better). The bigger story of course is that the Cimarron, Cadillac’s claims at the time notwithstanding, took a back seat to pretty much all of its supposed competition, such as it was.
In reality its real competition as a new-car offering was more likely the high-zoot versions of its Buick, Olds, and perhaps even Chevy J-car stablemates, definitely so if anything but self-perceived social status is concerned. Yes, Cadillac achieved a number of conquest (i.e. non-Cadillac-owning) sales (with a total of 132,499 over 7 model years), but few were seriously and objectively actually cross-shopping the Cimarron with the competition that Cadillac envisioned either on a value or performance basis. Cadillac, as did some others, ignored the nuance and intangible essences often available elsewhere in favor of superficial qualities. And those that did somehow consider the Cadillac superior overall would likely have been better served at a different GM division where essentially the same car was available as a better value, comparatively speaking. The 1980s were the heyday of Europe’s genuine initial volume ascendancy to the entry-level luxury game that the Cimarron aspired to; the Cimarron as an abstract concept in a boardroom presentation may not have been completely absurd on the face of it, but the way the idea was eventually executed (and approved) was simply wrong. So whether you prefer the ’83 Cimarron or the ’87 Cimarron, you probably would have preferred something else altogether if you were in the situation to do so at either time, and your choice would likely have been right.
The radios might be worth something…but that’s it!!
The one in the later car is the “Symphony Sound” with EQ that our ’86 Sedan de Ville had. It sounded good, especially for the time, and had the now-defunct AM Stereo built in. Some stations still broadcast it, but no new receivers are being made.
The GM Delco radios with the “AM ST” switch are great for mono AM music stations – engaging the switch also widens the audio bandwidth so the highs don’t rolloff.
The later AMAX AM Stereo radios in Cadillacs (and other GM’s) were even better sounding on AM.
I’m still looking for an 1987-1988 cimarron with the Delco Bose 100 watt sound system for my 87 Cavalier z24. I’d get the wiring, the speakers, the radio and the trunk mounted as AMP. I realize 100 watts isn’t much. I had a 1982 cimarron and it was great on gas but nothing else. I kept it for 15 years and my 87 Cavalier Z24 for over 30 years.
I am kind of sorry I never found a nice (cheap) used one after someone’s grandmother stopped driving. My problem is that I would have enjoyed the nicest Cavalier ever built, but everyone else would assume that I was one of those poor deluded people who thought of the car as a real Cadillac. This would have been one of the few times when I would genuinely be afraid of what others thought about my ride. Maybe a Cavalier grille and taillights would have helped.
Certain folks hereabouts will undoubtedly disagree, but I saw cars like this with the amber turn signal lights out back as nothing more than affectation. “Hey look, this car is a big deal in Europe!” or “Hey hon, that there must be wonna them new imports.” Sorry, but no.
The steering wheel in the older car was from the 1973 Grand Am. That might be my favorite part of either of these two cars.
Everything has been said about the Cimarron, and two Cimawrongs do not make a Cimaright.
You did slightly trigger my GM hatred with those door handles. Why did they use them for so long, they did indeed have poor feel and they broke. I replaced door handles on both of my family’s GM cars.
All those little incremental changes that didn’t matter, like the seat embroidery and the taillight crest. They should have put those engineering hours into actual engineering.
This comment contains my two favorite coined words of this week, and perhaps the entire month.
These are just cheesy and unfortunate, a good example of debasing your brand.
Although, since these have wheels, if a person put them back on the ground and pushed them around you could have two Cimarron rolls.
Did that make the ones exported to Germany CimmiBohns?
And drive on the CimaBahn
Always felt that if they had brought the ’87 car out in ’82, the Cimmaron wouldn’t have been as much of a joke as it became. At least the potential buyer would have felt he’s getting something more than a bit of bolt-on bling over the Chevrolet. As to the car itself . . . . .
Dad had an ’82 Pontiac J2000 (81 and 82 were sort of a weird period in his car ownership, he went from an ’81 Omni, the first ever non-Chevrolet product in Paczolt family history) before deciding that his son’s constant prattling about small four cylinder cars was garbage, and went back to his typical larger stuff, finally settling for a series of Buick Centuries. I was not terribly impressed, not helped by his having browbeaten me into yet another (and worst ever) Chevrolet (Monza) three years earlier when I really wanted to break the Chevy/GM cycle in the family. I bought an ’82 Omni instead, and found it completely superior to that Pontiac.
I have always felt the J cars were a total waste of time, money, and metal. Could be worse…they could have converted the Iron Duke into a diesel and offered it…and somebody, somewhere, who was a few bubbles off plumb, would have bought one.
If you start with a very good everyday car and badge engineer it into an entry level luxury offering, you get the Lexus ES. And it works. The Cimarron is what happens when you base it on a mediocre compact. Lexus was smart to base their entry level offering on the midsize Camry rather than the compact Corolla.
Not that Lexus is immune from debasing itself. Yesterday I was following a UX250h in traffic, analyzing what I thought of it for lack of anything better to do. The thought that crossed my mind was “Cimarron, MY2022, from a company who once knew better”. Not that the UX, like the Cimarron, was objectively terrible for the time, but it looks downmarket and unambitious from the company that rocked the boat with the LS400 and ’92 ES300. Much like the Cimarron was for those who remembered Cadillac’s defining years.
Sure. Because the original ES as well as others were so much different from the Camry. Both come from a company that I wouldn’t buy a toilet from.
It is the height of irony that Kohler sells a toilet model named the Cimarron.
I wonder what Toyota ever did to you. While there are likely many people that for whatever reason might not want to purchase their automobiles, I’d venture that even the most hardened pro-American cars gearhead or myopic Detroit executive would not say that they are poorly engineered, badly built, or unreliable vehicles. They might not fit their own needs, their image, or their interest, but to imply they are generally not worthy competitors in the marketplace says more about anyone saying that than about the company.
I’m laughing, Jim. I began my response but then moved on to something else for awhile before finishing the comment and submitting it. In the meantime you post a far better Kohler reference than I used.
Brand bias is a peculiar thing. We divide ourselves so willingly by it much as we do class, ethnicity, religion, political party. Bizarre. A bit like sports teams, now that I think about it. Mr. Dan seems to have a lot of personal identity tied up in GM and sees other brands as threats to some part of him rather than simply brands.
Nice try Jim. But putting words in my mouth that I didn’t say seems to be a stretch.
Don’t you have another article to write about how great those BMW’s are? I actually found one just for you on Bring a Trailer. It’s a 1987 3 series sedan in dark green. It has the super impressive 1.8L 4 cyl with a whopping 86 HP and an astounding 105 FPT. Comes with 14″ steel rims with those really great plastic hub caps. Interior looks great, you know because it doesn’t look like it’s from an S-10. No, not like the S-10, but more like a VW Jetta from that same year. Yup, you may not like anything about the Cimarron and it shows in your writing. But at least you put me in my place by pointing out the superiority in the BMW’s.
86 hp is what the 1983 Cimarron had from a 2liter, you re confusing your cars. I’m not seeing the words I “put in your mouth”.
The 1987 318i you reference produced 111-115hp depending on the source. One minute of googling would have told you that. Unlike you, I deal in facts when it comes to verifiable hard data and make obvious what is otherwise opinion. So it’s clear that the 4cylinder 318i had more power than the 4cylinder Cimarron and the 6cylinder had more power than the 6cyl Cimarron. GM was the one that put the BMW out there as competition, not me. I clearly stated that the actual competition for the Cimarron was more likely in house at GM.
Dan, I can do this all day but I do have better things to do. I also have a reputation for admitting if and when I am factually incorrect and correcting what I publish. Whatever you want to believe is perfectly fine, but I don’t agree with you presenting your opinions as alternative facts.
I know it’s been a hard week for you; first the STS article and now this. But that’s no reason to carpet bomb the site with your insecurities.
Toilets?
Lexus ES = Bland midrange Kohler with fancy soft-close lid and dual stage flush.
Cimarron = Homer bucket with a hole cut in the lid
Cadillac has had some impressive offerings over the past decade, from the ATS, CTS, CT4, CT5, CT6, and Escalade. They were impressive because none of them were rebadged Cobalts and Cruzes.
I’d forgotten all about the Cimarron. No wonder Cadillac went downhill so fast and so far. I can’t believe GM management ever allowed this car to be branded a Cadillac. What were they thinking? Were things that bad in 1982 that they felt the need to do this? I was only 17 that year but I never paid much attention to the Cimarron. The downfall of GM is similar to the downfall of the U.S. Rot and complacency had set in and the company lost it way. So sad.
From the stories I’ve read, Cadillac not only allowed, but demanded to be included in the J-car program. And way too late into the development cycle for it to be anything but a slightly blinged-out Cavalier. Such was the attitude that they actually believed that this would be enough.
Dealers were begging for a small car to “compete with imports”. GM HQ said, “here’s your small car, good enough, right?”
GM spent billions on acquiring companies EDS and Hughes, thinking they could “automate everything and get quality”, but huge waste of $$$.
And main reason Caddy went downhill was poor engines like 4100, V8-6-4, and diesels. Town Car got lots of big car fans. Cimarron was a “look we got small, now upsell” product.
Cadillac dealers had several great years before the summer ’79 gas crisis killed their sales. Adam of YT Rare Classic Cars said Cadillac originally wanted a version of the Citation (which I never read before), but there wasn’t enough available production volume in ’79-80, so they rushed to redo the ends of a J car. They should have waited to have the V6, but gas prices were still high and expected to rise. Instead, they plummeted in ’85.
Ralph L: There’s certainly truth to that. Cadillac wanted a version of the X platform (to which the Citation belonged). However, the dealers were pushing so hard on GM/Cadillac to get something out immediately that they rushed the J platform instead. I am a Cadillac fan and a Cimarron nut to boot. I have a lot of dealer training books, literature, videos and I’ve watched numerous interviews with some of the people who actually worked on the Cimarron. I also own one of the last 1988 models. They are and were nice cars in the end, but way too rushed at the start. But sadly, the powers at GM and the bean counters won and the car was pushed out knowingly too soon. So although the car was quite nice and competitive by 1986, the damage was so far along that they just gave up and thus we end up with articles and comments like on here today.
What needs to be remembered is what cars were back then and the Cimarron should be judged not by todays standards, but by the standards (right or wrong) from 1982.
Jim: by 1988, did anyone still feel the Cimarron was truly fighting the BMW? And who cares? I’ve said it before and will again. The biggest mistake Cadillac/GM ever made was to go after the German brands. Period. So unlike you, I’m not comparing the Cimarron then (nor do I have any interest in comparing anything today) to a BMW. The fact that the Cimarron was that much different from the BMW’s is exactly what makes me like it more.
BTW, in 1992 when the all new Buick Skylark first came out, a buddy of mine called me. He was driving a 1991 Buick Regal GS that he really liked. He was working at a golf course near Chicago and became friends with one of the managers. Long story short, this guy had a 1988 BMW 3 series that he was tired of costing him a months pay to keep it up. He drove 3 hours to come look at a 1992 Skylark GS. After driving it, he happily traded in his BMW. Several years later he told me it was the best move he could have made.
I admit, I had to google an image of the all-new ’92 Skylark. Your buddy called you with a story about a random golf course manager who then drove three hours to a Buick dealer while he lived in Chicago, home to about three dozen or more of them in the greater metro area, and three years later that random stranger looked you up again to tell you how great it was compared to his old 325i? Sure he did. Thanks for the chuckle but gimme a break.
What do you think of the 75% imported Buick line-up today, that must be considered a travesty, no? The Korean-built Encore GX is a great car though, I enjoyed it tremendously when I reviewed it a couple of years ago.
In ref to Jim’s comment.
Jim, Maybe you have never had a great sales person who impressed you enough to refer them to others. But I was at a point where in only 3 years I was selling mostly on repeat and referrals. And yes, I’ve sold many cars to Chicago area people over the years. Because my good friend was driving a Buick that he really liked, it would be quite logical for him to refer his co-worker to me.
Sad that you are so juiced on the over-rated BMW’s that you decide to call me a liar when I give you a real sales story. And that Skylark GS buyer didn’t call me after the 3 years. I called him. It’s part of how I sold so many cars. It’s called follow up.
Those instrument panels look like they would be more at home on the S-10 you mentioned. Far too benign, devoid of style, just — there. No appeal at all to the part of the car you look at the most other than when it’s parked.
I can’t help but think Cinnabon every time I read the name of this car. Were I to see one today driving by, I would not nod in respect. After all – it’s just another Cavalier.
We bag on these cars, and rightfully so. But I’d like to recognize the nameless, junior-level executive at Cadillac who recognized that a large portion of the demographic that used to head straight to the Caddy dealer upon getting their job promotion was now visiting the BMW, or Audi, or maybe even SAAB or Volvo dealer for their “I made it!” car.
And that junior exec was persuasive and tenacious enough to convince their superiors to do *something* about it. Turned out it wasn’t something GOOD, but at least they tried.
I guess I am one of the few people who love the Cimarron. My parents bought a l984 Cavalier in Nov. 83, and we had that car for l4 years. It was a great car,and I drove it for over 7 years and loved it.
So, in 1997, I found an 87 Cimarron with only 90,000 miles for $500. It was in fair condition (other than being dirty inside and slightly faded paint), so I bought it and sold my beloved Cavalier. The Cimarron had the excellent 2.8L V6, and I loved the way it drove.
Unfortunately, it developed a strange problem where the engine would suddenly cut off while driving, and was very hard to get re-started. No one could figure out what was causing this, and after a few months, I gave up and sold it.
I found out later on that the ’87 models had a bad reputation for all sorts of problems,
which other years did not. Even though my experience was a bad one, I still love the Cimarron, and would love to have another one, especially an ’85 or ’86 with the V-6.
I agree with others who said the Cimarron should have had the V-6 as the standard engine from the beginning. I think that (and a lower price) would have made the car
much more popular in the long run.
Mitchel G: I’m one of those who grew up in the 80’s and began to drive in a 1979 Toyota Corolla hatch. That car was reliable, but only because it had nothing to go wrong and was probably the most basic car I’ve ever seen. In those days, when a car was close to 100K, it was time to go newer. A friend of my dad’s just got a brand new 1985 Renault Alliance and dad thought the car was quite nice. Of course his friend felt the need to defend his import purchase and really did a nice job of “selling” dad on it. So off to the Renault and VW dealer we went. The car was nice enough, but the dealer was the most ignorant I’ve ever dealt with. This car was supposed to be for me, but they wouldn’t even acknowledge me. So I told dad that I was walking up the block to the Chevrolet store. Once there, I found the car that I knew I wanted: a 1985 Chevrolet Cavalier. I went back to the Renault store and told dad I found what I wanted and it was less money. After looking at and driving one, we ordered our new Cavalier CS sedan. That was a fantastic car, nicer than the Renault and light years nicer than the Toyota.
By this time, I got the “bug” for a sportier version and wanted the V6 that was just introduced. I ended up buying a used 1986 Cavalier Z24 that was kind of a settle for the time car. However, I had my eye on the all new blue 1987 Z24 on a dealer’s lot. One day I took the ’86 in for the same problem you described (hard to start). That dealer knew what it was and fixed it with a bulletin from GM. It was a fuel line that needed to be re-routed to a cooler spot as the heat buildup would cause a vapor lock like issue. You had to crank it longer to prime the gas again. That issue was fixed on the ’87 models (so they told me) and I ordered my blue 1987 that day and never had any similar issues. But I had been eyeing the Cimarron for a while because I liked the slight changes and the fancier suit! Then in 1988 I began to sell for a dealer with Buick, Cadillac, GMC and Honda. Being the last year for the Cimarron, we only had one in stock and only a couple used ones came in over the years. But I never stopped looking.
Fast forward to 2021 when I finally found the one I wanted. It was located about 100 miles from where I live. I purchased it sight unseen and took the dealer’s word on this one. He shipped the car to me a few days later and she proudly sits in my garage today. It’s a 1988 (last year) in dark red over silver with the red leather and only 62K on the clock. This car is a total joy to get in and drive. And yes, although we are 100% in the minority here, I’ll take the Cimarron anytime over most anything else from that same era.
IME the 87+ 2.8/3.1 was super reliable and simple to work on. But one thing it liked to eat was ignition modules and crank sensors. I keep a test cable and spare in my trunk. Would cause the same issue you had.
‘Love’ is a little strong, but the Cimarron ‘was’ a very nice Cavalier. TBH, a gently used, cheap Cimarron a couple of years after the last ones rolled off the assembly line would not be that bad of a daily-driver, maybe made even better by removing all the Cadillac/Cimarron emblems to alleviate the pretension.
In that context, I’d give the Cimarron a break as an okay car.
I never understood why these lasted so many model years. Within three years, GM knew what an embarrassment they were and what damage they were doing to the Cadillac brand. They didn’t sell well. Why keep them around all those years?
Because it took 7 years to complete the traditional GM “cancel it once you’ve got it right” product cycle.
I honestly think that if Cadillac had gussied up the A body instead of the J, they’d have done much better. The A body came out in 1982, the HT4100 would fit (for all I know, it’d fit the J, too) it, and it would’ve been more appropriately sized. Use as many 6000 STE parts as possible instead of the Z24 ones. Unlike their RWD lineup that year, the 4100 would’ve been sufficient.
This exactly. Why? GM always did this. Was it rushed to market? Or did they have a design in mind, then cut it down and then breadcrumb over the years to show continual improvement? Meanwhile driving off customers with a crappy first impression. And canceling it because by the time they sold a great product, the customers long since went elsewhere. They did that with the Fiero and many others.
On a side note, I wonder if anyone has ever put together a Cimarron wagon. Would be awesome to see. Back then of course it wouldn’t have been a great seller because the only Cadillac wagons were hearses.
Dave, what a shame you didn’t work for GM in an executive capacity back then. This is exactly the sort of reasoned approach they needed, not the knee-jerk that led to the Cimarron. So long as they allowed you to restyle it – we don’t need a fifth identical-looking A-car on the magazine cover…
I’ve said all I need to say about these over the years in my posts, but I never fail to be amazed at how cheap that dash and shifter look; never mind the exterior.
> from day one it was obvious that it was a Chevrolet Cavalier with all the gingerbread that arguably America’s top luxury brand could fling at it.
The amazing thing about the first-year ’82 Cimarron is that they didn’t throw all that much gingerbread on it. That would have been too much work and cost too much money and taken too much time. No, it was just unabashedly a Cavalier with a few minor changes and Cadillac crests on it. That’s what struck me about the car when it was new. There were no Brougham d’Elegance packages on the options list. Cadillacs had long shared many parts with Chevrolets – several parts on an ’81 de Ville interchange with a Caprice, but Cadillac made sure that their cars looked and felt different. Not with the Cimarron.
I think the minor changes to the front and rear and the cladding on later models just bogged it down even more. The Cimarron did eventually get a unique piece of sheetmetal – the hood on the in-between cars you mentioned (1985 iirc) changed shape, being raised in the center to match the new grille shape. In back, the trunk lids on all J-bodies were the same except the Olds which needed cutouts at the end to fit over the square taillamps.
This is actually a Cadillac Packardbaker – a stop gap vehicle with the intention of finding a marketing solution. I don’t know what the actual Packardbaker stickered at, compared to the Studebaker it actually was, but Cadillac charge twice the cost for their Packardbaker over the Cavalier – which was highway robbery.
The J-cars were disposable turds. You don’t waste your time polishing them and then charging twice the price. If the Cadillac was 30% higher than the Cavalier, say $8,000 instead of $12,000 – it would have been a more ethical business deal.
Cadillac sold over 100,000 Cavaliers at $12,000 – theoretically. Realistically I would imagine that the going price of these turds was probably upper $9,000s.
This is what is so disturbing about the entire situation, in my opinion, is that the people at GM and at Cadillac thought so little of the Cadillac name that they would apply it to a disposable turd car. Their actions said that having a Cadillac wasn’t a worthy goal. They said that the entire Cadillac brand was a charade and a hoax. There is a reason Cadillac sales never regained their previous glories.
Got it. Everyone on this site just loves the imports and everything should aspire to be an import.
Why even do an article on anything other than your beloved BMW’s, Honda’s and Toyota’s? Maybe a little research into this model and the different years would have done a lot to make the article credible, rather than putting most of the effort into the snide remarks and plugs for imports.
“and everything should aspire to be an import”
I would have been happy if this had actually aspired to be a Cadillac rather than a cynical boob-job on a Cavalier.
JP: Understood. My comment wasn’t really about the car, but about the overall attitude. Anyhow, you have every right to that opinion, but it’s not mine and I’m certain there are many more out there just like me.
I’ve been coming to this site for about a year now because I just love older cars and reading about them (all brands) in an unbias way. Maybe to those who have been coming here longer it’s not as obvious, but to me it was immediately apparent. All the little innuendoes and remarks within the articles make it perfectly clear.
I think my body of work on this site speaks for itself as well as my ownership history of a vast variety of cars that I’ve also written about here that makes clear I’m not a domestic car hater whatsoever. In fact I currently own three domestic branded and built vehicles currently and rate them very highly.
What “plugs for imports” are in this post? I referenced the same specific cars that Cadillac referenced and compared their car to in their own brochures. This was the ONE CAR that Cadillac built that actually DID ASPIRE to be an import and was pronounced (by GM) to be as such. When they make such claims, we (and the potential customer base) have obvious license to weigh in on that. A decade or so later they tried again, with somewhat better results, that car you lambasted the post about yesterday. Then from the trickle came the flood of Cadillacs trying to out-BMW BMW since the original CTS, which again is a complete plastic fantastic joke of an interior for starters. Why Cadillac can’t learn, I don’t know. I do know trying to be BMW did not then, does not now, and likely won’t in the future work. The Cadillac brand is tarnished beyond redemption and this car was a large reason as to why (but hardly the only reason, everyone gets to make at least one mistake).
Dan, you are MORE than welcome to write the definitive history of the Cimarron and submit it. The site has written extensively about the Cimarron, its history and its legacy over the years, and while I’m sure some of them served their owners well, the vast and overwhelming response has been “yep, what an absolute turd and no wonder Cadillac and to a lesser extent GM rode all the way into the ground and are still trying to recover.” I would caution you though to report the actual facts, not just your rose-tinted conjecture, the readership will quickly let you know if you did a good job or not.
And in regard to the above comment you left, I think the ongoing 30year plus success of the Lexus ES speaks for itself, as well as that of the Camry it’s somewhat based on, with the first obvious difference is zero shared body panels between the ES and its US market Camry basis. While the JDM market did have an alternate Camry that became the US ES in the beginning, that car was unknown here, unlike the Cavalier twin of the Cimarron. Resale values should tell you all you need to know about quality over superficiality, but whatever.
The funniest part (if it wasn’t so sad) is Cadillac’s future. All Electric, really? The only people that generally have any remaining fondness for Cadillac as a brand are senior citizens at this point. And those are precisely the people (and we have a few commenters that fit this) that constantly and consistently bleat on about EVs being a boondoggle that can’t possibly succeed. Who is going to buy an EV Cadillac?
” A Tercel maybe, but not a Caddy. Actually the Tercel SR5 did have the five, no? ”
“A rectangle for everything and everything in its rectangle. Boring in 1983, boring-er in 1987.”
” The blue one looks like someone at Cadillac saw a mid ’80s Toyota steering wheel and said “Hold my Faygo”.”
There are just 3 of the many. But I digress.
You may be being a little overly sensitive here. Since English is my second language though I will expound on my comments, I may have been unclear.
– The first comment was pointing out that in 1982 a five speed transmission was not cutting edge, but rapidly a common offering that even entry-level cars from elsewhere had them. On a new to market supposed performance luxury car at the time at that price point it should have been included from day one. Close to nobody bought the manual in a Cimarron in any form anyway, even when the five speed was added anyway. I don’t think anybody else here thought I was counseling them that the Tercel was a genuine competitor to the Cadillac but not due to any quality shortcomings on its part, in that respect it actually was likely better.
– And multiple rectangles upon rectangles are still boring today, irrespective of the car. Not sure how that comment is perceived as pro-import but whatever.
– The 1980s Toyota square centered steering wheel, while fine to hold and use, is far from being an attractive design. The Cimarron’s square centered wheel isn’t either though. I stated my preference for the three-spoker, even if it did obscure the gauges in Cadillac’s own advertising of the era (a fact which I didn’t mention in the article, nor that it was apparently lifted from a Colonnade-era Pontiac as someone reminded me above)
If those are the most striking supposedly “pro-import” comments, your assertions are quite off the mark.
If I had one major criticism about EVs it is that automakers, the media and customers alike currently treat EV as a different segment of vehicle entirely, rather than just the new powerplant in existing segments they are in the scheme of things. Cadillac isn’t dumb for going EV, just like they weren’t dumb for switching their engines to dual overhead cam(well, ok, the execution was dumb), what Cadillac is dumb for is banking on switching to EV to re-re-revive the brand’s identity when EV is very obviously the apparent future of every other automaker too – Cadillac obviously isn’t going to be known for being a pioneer in EV, that ship has long sailed, so what’s their hook? A lineup of car/crossover/SUV EVs that are no more or less appealing to their same dwindling demographic than their current unremarkable lineup of ICE cars/crossovers/SUVs?
It’s the same problem with the Cimarron; a smaller, nimbler more international Cadillac – just like every American automaker was doing circa 1982-1987. “We did it too” isn’t a good marketing strategy to start a brand, much less revive one.
Not a bad take, and likely the reality. GM as a company shouldn’t be tasking Cadillac as the vanguard of the EV transition, this is happening due to GM thinking that Cadillac is still the big halo and everyone aspires to it that when the EVs are hopefully successful will filter down and magically make all their others brands look good. Cadillac does not have that influence on the market anymore and hasn’t in some time. I think these days their Chevy/GMC truck lineup is more what has taken on that role in the average consumer’s mind rather than Cadillac the brand. So the Silverado EV will do far more to make Chevy and the other brands EV-capable in the consumer’s mind but there should be a Sierra version ASAP as well. That and the Blazer EV and there really should be a Colorado EV as well along with whatever else they have, those need to be on the front burner and stop wasting time, money, and effort on high end Cadillacs that don’t sell anymore and are irrelevant beyond being pretty show cars.
Within the context of the Cimarron’s debut and target market, comparisons to import cars are to be expected. Cadillac was aiming directly at the import market, specifically the european import market. This page is right out of the 1982 Cimarron brochure:
http://www.lov2xlr8.no/brochures/cadillac/82cim/bilder/9.jpg
Cadillac compares it to the Audi 5000, BMW 320i, Volvo GLE and the Saab 900S sedan.
Between these two, boiled down only to cosmetics, I prefer the 83. The Cavalier resemblance in the front end was a self inflicted wound when Chevy restyled the front end in 84 to use quad headlights that inevitably looked almost identical to the Cimarron. The 82-83 Cavalier with its two large square headlights was a much different look. In addition I think the later ribbed cladding is tacky, same as it is on every other GM that uses it to distinguish the same car between brands, if the Cimarron was trying to look more European it should look less festooned with clutter.
To a degree the basic J body body is pretty decent looking and maybe passable as a 3 series competitor without getting into the nuts and bolts of it and especially the elephant in the room of the ‘other’ identical J bodies. Taken in isolation today with its siblings all dead it isn’t quite as comical. Really though, I think the root of the problem is it isn’t what Cadillac should have been making, peak Cadillac was Rolls Royce/Bentley type luxury, not BMW type luxury, I don’t believe a better Cimmaron like the 87 being available from the start would have made a lick of difference, and quite frankly the attempt at broadening the lineup to chase maximum volume for the division probably spread development so thin all models suffered. The Deville was too big in the 70s, a smaller companion Cadillac made some sense, but after the 77 downsizing the focus should have been on making that a world class luxury car and quietly phase out the Seville by the time the Bustleback debuted and forget all about smaller BMWs and Mercedes being their competition, use Buick to target that market instead.
I agree, the composite lights and cladding detract. The original is quite clean but doesn’t say Cadillac at all. Their cursive script on it looks dorky. The intermediate years have quad headlights with the elongated, peaked hood & grille–with the cladding, unfortunately.
Olds should have gone after BMW etc much earlier, but they were selling too many Cutlass Supreme Ciera Calais Broughams.
“…use Buick to target that market instead.” Apparently, Lloyd Reuss, Buick’s chief engineer back then, wanted the Buick division to become a sort of American Audi. He was responsible for the T-Type models of the early 80s. Apparently the higher ups thought that Pontiac was the sporty division. But Pontiac styling was over-wrought- what with flame decals and lower body cladding. Had the T-Type just become the standard Buick, GM might have been able to better compete with the European brands.
“Apparently, Lloyd Reuss, Buick’s chief engineer back then, wanted the Buick division to become a sort of American Audi.”
Seems like almost every division had their brief crack at being the near-luxury “Import Fighter” at GM. Buick T-Types trying to be the American Audi. Then Oldsmobile got cast as the import fighter starting with the Aurora. When Olds went belly up, the rebadged Opels then went on to be Saturns.
I live in a country Cadillac ignored completely until the CTS model but youd be amazed at how many older Caddies I see on Auckland streets and motorways and who drives them everyone from suit wearers to guys in hiviz commuting to work in the early hours but Ive never seen a Cimmaron in the metal in fact the most recent J car i can recall running in traffic was many years ago and it was a Toyota/Chevy Cavalier, even the locally built Holden efforts are extinct.
Small horizontal wings were first put on the small crest in 1932. In 1941-2, the wings are vertical and both are huge. They were replaced by the Vee after the war. The vertical winged crest reappeared on the ’70 fender tips, between the headlights on the ’71, and on the front turn light of the ’72 and rear light of the first gen Seville.
A family I’ve been long time friends with was very dedicated to Pontiacs, always full-size.
After the second oil price shock, the GM dealer they traded at had a LOADED Cavalier on the sales floor.
Their 1976 Bonneville Brougham 4 door hardtop went to their son, my friend, and the Cavalier came home.
It was an oddity to me, few Cavaliers matched that car, but it still had full hard plastic door cards. I think there were better door cards, it was like a mega optioned low interior trim car. Not very nice. It was traded for a Pontiac 6000 STE a few years later.
But, that Cavalier looked very much like these Cimarrons, inside and out. Can you imagine selling these through a Chevrolet / Cadillac store?
“Can you imagine selling these through a Chevrolet / Cadillac store?”
Ouch!
Fascinated me at the time, that Chrysler was able to present a similar sleight of hand, marketing gussied up K-Cars as E Classes, New Yorkers and LeBarons. And not receive the same level of derision as GM did, for the Cimarron. Granted, Chrysler did a bit more to distinguish their luxury K-Cars, from the standard Reliants.
Also, Chrysler were the ‘comeback kids’. Auto writers and the public perhaps more willing forgive the underdog Chrysler, for having the nerve/audacity to market K-Cars as viable luxury car competitors.
Much more was expected of GM and Cadillac compared to Chrysler. We were used to Chrysler brands being sometimes differentiated by grill and tail light textures.
Cadillac had typically unique sheet metal, interiors, engines, etc., until Cimarron.
Cadillac had apparently wanted a small car based on the GM A body variant of the X body, but with exclusive sheet metal. Dealers, panicked by the 1979 oil price spike, didn’t want to wait. GM responded with a rushed J body variant and told head designer John Manoogian he could update the front fascia, grill, tail light lenses and wheels.
Even Mr. Manoogian acknowledges the disappointment.
Great answer. I fully agree. GM/Cadillac had far more to lose.
I keep thinking that the whole Cimmaron episode was an alternative-universe thing written by somebody who had a pathological hatred for Cadillacs – but nope, GM actually did it…
Fitting that you show this in the junk yard, I’m not thinking about this being a Cadillac, but my Dad’s experience with his newly purchased ’84 Pontiac Sunbird (on the same platform as the Cimarron) which I’m sure he’d agree was the worst car he ever owned. It was in the wrecking yard by ’89 with about 80k miles on it, having 2 completely new engines (the original and a new replacement) in that time, the 2nd one threw a rod through the block (don’t remember the problem on the 1st one)…both were the 2.0. The car was maintained at the same Pontiac dealer he bought it at, per schedule. And it started out badly enough, with fewer than 1000 miles on the car (more like 200) it was incapacitated with a bad timing belt. And it wasn’t even a first year of the model, it was 2 years removed, so plenty of time to take care of design issues you would think.
Yes, I can hear some people saying…must have gotten a bad one….and I’d partially agree, except for the 2 engines…unless they were both built on the same (bad) day. Yes, there were other problems, like chronically leaking power steering leak, and switchgear like the light switch that disintegrated into nothing (we do live in the sunbelt, so maybe it baked, but in less than 4 years from new?).
To be fair, my sister bought the same model new (it still remains their only new car purchase) up in the Northeast, she didn’t have any problem with the original engine, hers died “normally” as a car does up there from rust, but otherwise no problems like my Dad had with his. This was the 2nd “copycat” purchase my Dad made with cars, he’d also purchased a new ’69 Country Squire right after my uncle bought a new ’69 LTD 4 door hardtop (even buying from the same dealership, which on the surface doesn’t sound unusual, but we never lived within a couple hundred miles of my relatives).
Probably, like my Dad, people were still a bit concerned over fuel economy and “overreacted” and bought a small car such as these, which proved to be a mistake…even getting better gas mileage doesn’t save you money when the car itself goes from new to the junk yard in 4 years. I even understand the Cimarron buyer, wanting a bit of luxury for the “compromise” of going to a smaller car. In my Dad’s case you could even say he was moving up a level, going from a ’78 Chevy Caprice to the Pontiac, but there was no comparing those 2 cars….he should have just hung onto the Chevy, damn the fuel mileage (but of course there was also uncertainty of being able to get gas during shortages, even if you were willing to pay the higher price, which also “scared” large car owners into cars that got better mileage (or had a better cruising range).