It’s said that true journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed and that by definition, pieces which fall short of that standard amount to mere PR. Car and Driver, then, really made the grade in their unflattering December 1985 preview of the freshly released Eldorado and Seville.
Chuck Jordan was in charge of the new cars’ design, and the stated objective, as reported in this piece, was for the styling to echo the rest of the GM range. The hope was that the new Seville and Eldorado would demonstrate the automaker’s then-current knowhow in its most evolved form.
As far as the editors at C&D were concerned, that was the wrong approach, and their criticism closely mirrors what Paul has written about these cars in the past. We can chalk that up to his excellent memory, but also to the inescapably bizarre impression made by the cars themselves. On one hand, they were deliberately made to look small, suggesting a modern, more international approach to design and certain details–the bumpers, grille, headlights, mirrors and door frames–appear well-integrated. On the other hand, with their ultra-formal greenhouse and bizarre proportions, there was no mistaking the Seville and Eldo for anything foreign, and that was before one drove them.
Even as a child, the Seville and Eldorado perplexed me. There were plenty of the brand’s rear-drive Broughams around, to say nothing of the Lincolns, and full-sized Buicks and Oldsmobiles which were so popular in late ’80s, so it was difficult to make sense of these smaller Cadillacs, which to my young self just seemed like American cars with all the excess taken away. It was hard to see the point, and sales figures represented the mixed message.
Other than the white Eldorado owned by a perpetually drunk neighbor, who’d traded in his early ’80s Toronado for the privilege of owning the Caddy, I didn’t see many of these cars new. They were thin on the ground from the beginning, though I did get the chance to ride in a few late ’80s Sevilles as I got older. The primary impression was of seat cushions and a roof which were low, coupled with rear seat backs which were very upright, making sitting in the back a knees-in-the-face experience. At the time, my understanding of the Seville as a floaty car with the rear seat accommodations of a sporty coupe was repressed by the belief that such an expensive luxury car had to have some genuinely competitive quality, further confounding me.
I take most of the auto rags with a grain of salt, and have had many occasions–especially in comparos–where I suspect they’re playing favorites. In this case, however, it’s very difficult to find fault with the author’s assessment and given the striking degree of criticism for a freshly released car, the article just begged to be scanned.
Related Reading: 1986-1991 Seville – GM Deadly Sin #21, 1986 Buick Riviera – GM Deadly Sin #1
Ugh! Some people consider the 1970’s to be the dark decade. For me, these were the darkest of the whole lot.
I’m with you 100%! My father worked at a full line GM dealership from 1979 to 1990 and this was without a doubt a very depressing time. It was screwup, after screwup, after screwup!
Dr. Kelso just saw the new ’86 Cadillacs…
Yes these vehicles were certainly, ah, “complicated” I guess.
I’ll defend the formal roofline forever though.
Two things really stand out for me here. Back in the 80s CD would have 5 pages of print for a car review. Today you get 1 or 2. The other thing that caught my attention: “70 percent of Audi 5000S drivers have college degrees” Ha ha ha ha!
At least most were at least smart enough to cut and run when the warranty was up.
But not smart enough to tell the gas pedal from the brake. The demographic information is interesting, as it seems to debunk the unintended acceleration excuse that many Audi 5000S buyers were coming from traditional Detroit luxo-barges with the pedals separated by a zip code.
From that recall the interlocks were installed that would not allow you to shift out of park without stepping on the brake pedal first. Now all automatic cars have this as required equipment. That was the real “unintended acceleration”.
The roof line of the Seville was pretty much identical to the Pontiac Grand Am. The dashboards were really cheap looking somehow. The Seville Touring Sedan (STS) did start on this version of the Seville in 1988. This version of the Seville is smaller than the larger Deville, which was the point of the mid 70’s Seville.
Not surprising that the Seville would have the proportions of a “lesser model” car, like the Grand Am…
Since, the 1st gen Seville(1976-79), was based on the 1975-79 X-cars( Nova, Skylark, Omega and Ventura/Phoenix). lol
Before I ever gave a damn about Caddies (~10 years ago), I always thought this era looked way too much like a tarted up Grand Am, which were little sh!tbombs that HS kids ran into the ground in my area. I wondered why Caddilac put out such a pathetic little thing, especially when you still saw the old-school Fleetwood Broughams on the road with a fair degree of regularity.
Its supposed to be a luxury car or sorts, right?
Caddy tried to downsize, they tried to modernize but they still tried to keep some of the “Caddilac” design cues and the result was just sad.
The 1986-87 were shadows of themselves next to the sharp 1979-85 Eldos, but the 1988 refresh made them look more “important” and the updated 4.5 V8 made them into quite livable, comfortable cars. The 4.9 added in ’91 turned both the Seville and Eldorado into Broughamy little hot rods, too.
This is a fantastic article to read in 2014. (I have the original magazine somewhere in storage.) In the “Hard Times At Cadillac” sidebar, note that Harry Frank wrote “[Cadillac] will have to adopt a clear philosophy and a focused marketing strategy. … Does it want to make a break with the past and move on to some new long-term, well-reasoned strategy?”
I’m glad to say that they finally did break from the past, starting with the 1992 Seville. Note that it took nearly 10-15 years to reinvent Cadillac, turn around the brand image, and start making cars enthusiasts wanted to buy.
Cadillac could have easily ended up like the limping Lincoln, selling thinly re-skinned Edges and Fusions. Or worse, Oldsmobile.
While the 1992 Seville was a vastly better car than its predecessor, it was really just more of the same. Although GM was moving in the direction of stiffer body structure, which Cadillac got later on. The real turn around started with the 2003 CTS, although the Catera may have been an early signal that Cadillac was beginning to move in a new direction.
The smaller 86 Seville would have been much easier to turn into a FWD sports sedan. The bigger 92 Seville was almost completely hopeless, but a wonderful highway (as in interstate) cruiser.
I agree the 2003 CTS marked a big turnaround for Cadillac, but could it have existed without the 1992 Seville as a transition model from the vinyl roof, chrome encrusted bricks built up until 1991?
I see a lot (meaning way too many) of the 92-2003 Sevilles with vinyl roofs (many of them some sort of carriage style). GM might have designed the stiff structured body (introduced with the 1995 Aurora) as a RWD body, in which case the Seville might have gotten to the point of being a decent sports sedan by the late 90’s.
I see the 1989 Deville as a real transition in terms of style for Cadillac. Vinyl roofs were still available, but I do not see vinyl roofs as either good or bad – useless certainly.
It started even a little while before that, the little tiny faction within Cadillac that started with the Touring Suspension cars in 1979-1980, leading to cars like the 1982-1985 Eldorado Touring Coupe and 1986 DeVille Touring Editions were some of the first little sparks which eventually became a flame with cars like the ETC and STS Eldorado and Seville in 1989-1990, burning further with the 1992 Northstar, bad or good(yada-yada-yada-head gaskets, I know) was the first 300hp Cadillac since the first Nixon administration, and the first time in a long time that people in European cars found themselves staring at the taillights of a Cadillac, leading to the first CTS after another period of doldrums in the late 90’s, the first CTS made cars like the V-series line up possible.
I’ve always found these cars absolutely horrible and bizarre looking, ever since I was a little kid. They’re not just too small and basic-looking… they’re straight up ugly and horribly proportioned!
The fragile, paper thin C-pillar, and stubby, TINY rear overhang of the 4-door Seville has always particularly stuck out as the most offensive part. It looked passable on the Grand Am of the era, not great, but okay on a cheap car. On a Cadillac, with all the Cadillac trimmings and supposedly “formal” presence? Hell no!
The rest of the car just looks like a FWD Buick LeSabre with cornering lamps and chrome-plated mirrors. These are so bad looking I’ve never bothered looking into any of their intrinsic qualities, which there appears to be very few of anyway. The redeemed themselves with the styling of the 1992 models, at least.
The ’86 Olds Calais had a window sticker of about $9600
The ’86 Cadillac Eldorado was priced at about $24,000
It’s a miracle they sold ANY Eldorados. I guess back then if you slapped on a few pieces of stainless steel trim, whitewalls and fake wire wheel covers.. and if the salesman got Gramps to squint hard enough he could be convinced that ’86 was as nice as the ’68 he was trading in. Grim times indeed in the Cadillac showrooms.
Yeah, it’s like GM learned absolutely nothing from the Cimarron fiasco. But, then, bean-counter Roger Smith was running the show back then, too. There were only so many well-off geezers with poor eyesight on whom you could unload these ‘way’ overpriced Cadillacs.
Remember GM had 50% of the US market share in 1979. I think hubris, arrogance, and momentum carried them on a downward spiral for the next 20 years.
GM did extremely well in the ’60’s. They made excellent cars that the public wanted and they sold very well. There was a clear ladder up the corporate product line and everyone knew it. The products were sufficiently different that is wasn’t hard to justify the extra moolah for each step up.
This started to blur when the Great Brougham Epoch, with cars like the Caprice and LTD, which have very close to premium car comfort at a much lower price. This competed with GM and Ford’s higher models, which in turn went downmarket to compete. It was vicious circle.
The problem at GM especially was there was no real clear vision of what they wanted to do, other than further their careers and make money in the short term. This car is a classic committee result. It lacks passion, soul or even decent engineering. GM could have produced a really cool car that would have knocked everybody’s socks off, but we got this shrunken dreck with zero, I repeat, ZERO cachet. When I spend that kind of dough on a car I want it to be comfortable, fast, handle well, safe and reliable. These rolling crapheaps had none of these qualities.
Must we see these side-by-side “It looks the same” pics over and over? It’s not the same car. If you’ve ever ridden in one of those POS 4-cyl Olds vs. 8-cyl Cadillac you’d know there’s a difference. ‘Nuff said.
The point is how on earth did Cadillac expect potential Eldorado buyers to pony up more than 2x the sticker price for an Eldorado which had virtually same profile as the Calais? Historically you bought a Caddy and you wanted your neighbors to KNOW it! Not to mistake it in a dark parking lot for something less prestigious.
By the way, in 2014 dollars that Eldo would have cost about $51K.
And I like doing side-by-side pics for quick comparisons.
You’re missing the point. To us, yes, they aren’t the same car. To the great unwashed general populace that can barely spell “car” they ARE alike, simply because they look alike.
The San Francisco Auto Show for the 1986 cars. I remember attending and remember this well. I was always a big (no pun intended) Caddy fan, although as the 1980s wore on, I was getting disillusioned. I saw these cars (a candy apple red Eldorado) and thought, “this is a tarted up Olds Ciera” but what made it worse was over on the Buick side of the carpet where there was less tan 20ft. apart, an ’86 Riviera and an ’86 N body Regal . . both in white . . both with wire wheel covers . . . . both very similar in appearance . . but with a $10K gap. I thought to myself, ‘the new Eldorado and Riv are losers that look too much like the cheaper cars.’ At least the ’86 Toronado had a little distinction from it’s cheaper cousins . . . .
As I found out later on through the car mags and word of mouth, the 4.1 even in FWD form, were still underpowered wheezers. Shit bombs extraordinaire. At least the ’88’s started to wake up a little . . .
Cadillac from approximately 1976-1993 should just be written off & forgotten about, with a few exceptions…
This is certainly an interesting forum for you to say such.
The ’77 Coupe de Ville had its merits, and there are fans of the 1979-85 Eldorado too. But what on earth was GM thinking, spending money to create a different B-pillar treatment (and corresponding window frame changes) for the 1977-79 Fleetwood? Ridiculous; idiotic on its face.
Johnny Roast Beef loved his ’77 Coupe de Ville.
The 1938 Cadillac Fleetwood Sixty Special was characterized by the different B-pillar treatment.
Actually, it’s the same B-pillar, and the same upper door frames – they just dropped the vinyl and drip rail down the B-pillar. A faint echo of the ’71-’76, but not that expensive.
No, the B-pillar on the pre-1980 Fleetwoods was wider at the top than at the bottom (although covered with roof vinyl as you say), requiring different rear door frames. See the 1977 Cadillac brochures at oldcarbrochures.com. Obviously no potential buyers cared either way, so this distinction was dropped for the 1980 refresh.
The 1977-1979 Devilles were nice cars for their day, with 330 lb/ft torque from the 425 CID big block Cadillac motor. Have a look at my CC on a 1978 Deville, which I drove over the Rockies last summer.
I’m in the minority, but actually liked these then, and now.
They have their appeal.
I don’t hate them the way some people do, and I find the touring trim versions interesting,
Still, I think Ford pulled off the Fox body Lincolns much better than Cadillac handled the downsizing. I mean a Mark VII against this generation Eldorado isn’t much of a contest.
I find them interesting too, don’t think of them as bad Eldorados, think of them as the most pimped out compact car ever.
What I find fascinating is how many “old school” touches were bent, molded and smoothed out to try to fit these cars, viny tops, opera lamps, fender mounted lamp monitors. On the inside it was the same, heavy faux wood, and umpteen courtesy, warning, and reading lamps, Armrests, bric-a-brac, cursive scripts, etc etc.
Though, unfortunately, they “over-downsized” these cars and they sort of look like a Little Tykes “My First Pimpmobile” starter kit.
True. They were “Cadillac Lite,” but with all the gadgets, gizmos and gingerbread of the biggies of just a few years prior.
“…they sort of look like a Little Tykes ‘My First Pimpmobile’ starter kit.”
I almost spit my drink on the keyboard reading that. Best summary of these cars I’ve heard yet.
Same here!
+2
They kept all the baroque stuff on these but got rid of the stainless steel roof- which was awesome on the previous generation.
“Cursive scripts” — Wow, you just provided a little clarification on my life, thanks. I believe I am the only one my age who writes in cursive. My writing always gets comments/compliments. No wonder, as I’ve always been a Brougham boy! Piecing things together…
I write in cursive too, and am a harcore broughamist.
Carmine wins the Internet!
Horrible stunted little garden gnome of a car.
Don’t hold back! Tell us how you really feel. 😉
I always kinda liked these cars, especially the Seville. I remember sitting in a new one on the showroom floor. However, I went to look at one advertised on CL cheap, it was an ’89 Eldorado. I thought it would be fun project. Now keep in mind, our weather in Vancouver Canada is similar to Eugene, cars are well preserved. But it was simply horrible. The whole look of the interior was cheap- cheap. Some of the interior plastics were warping, the leather seats, although not ripped felt terrible to the touch. The clear coat was peeling something awful. It was tiny little mess. Any warm and fuzzy feelings I had for these cars died.
Horrid ugly cars Its hard to believe GM expected people to pay good money to be laughed at in a clown proportioned car, The Catera was a baby step to modernise Cadillac however they ordered it wrong they shoulda got them via GMH after they ironed the Euro bugs out, Standard of the world not.
Bryce, you forgot “rubbish.” 😉
. . . . and how these Cadillacs couldn’t carry sheep over the gravel roads over Kiwiland . . .
Well, you’re onto something there Billy, as a ’76 Sedan de Ville could fit 23 sheep in the trunk (25 if you ditched the spare) whereas these ’86 Sevillorados could only hold 4 sheep and being FWD the weight of said sheep meant the front wheels were scrabbling for grip and the Eldoville couldn’t get up our steep gravel roads. 😉
I’ve never seen one of these Eldorados or Seviles of this generation with cloth seats. Those pictures were a little shocking…
I will always be reminded of the classic ’80s movie Adventures In Babysitting when I see one of these.
I remember that, though I’ve maybe seen that movie twice, I recall it being GM heavy….I think the majority of the cars in the movie were GM cars, there was a Buick Estate Wagon, an IROC, a Fleetwood Brougham…..
The dark red Brougham was my favorite, closely followed by the blue Electra Estate Wagon. The bad guys in the movie drove a Lincoln Town Car–about the only non-GM in the movie.
I tend to agree with the article. The idea of what constituted a luxury/nice car was changing, and Cadillac made a half-arsed attempt to meet those definitions with pretty much all of its FWD models. I agree they are getting better at it recently although the reviews today still seem critical in many of the same ways.
As much as I acknowledge all of the above, the reason I don’t like these cars is because I don’t like or really understand the new definition of luxury. So I don’t like these or the competition they half-heartedly tried to challenge. They don’t do anything for me; I have preferred the smooth, old school Cadillac ride practically since birth.
Today’s Cadillacs keep improving in the new luxury vein. I think they will be more successful once their primary market are buyers who no longer–favorably or unfavorably–remember the old Cadillacs–both these and the RWDS.
I wonder what will happen when the Baby Boomers are no longer as prominent a car-buying group. They were the ones who by and large shunned their parents’ U.S.-built Colony Parks, Bonnevilles and New Yorkers for Hondas, Toyotas and German imports. I am 34 and have a large interest in the luxury domestics–the cars my paternal grandparents drove–to the point that I may eventually trade off the V50 for a CPO Lincoln MKS or MKZ sedan.
I was just reading a couple of articles today about new car buying demographics, and I asked myself the same question about the future of the car market.
It used to be that after age 60, people’s new car purchases generally plummeted. But today, the 55-to-64 age group (baby boomers) is the largest car buying section of the market by a WIDE margin. They are buying more cars at much older ages than the WWII gen.
But how long will that last? No one lives forever. And with people in their 20s and 30s (my generation) hardly giving two flips about cars and, in many cases, not even bothering to drive at all… who will buy cars in 20 years, and what they buy? Obviously someone will, but there’s going to be some huge and interesting shifts in the next couple of decades.
Despite being a New Yorker I don’t buy the whole “impending death of cars” theme.
Plenty of parts of the country necessitate a car. Choosing to not drive at all is choosing to be unemployed. I don’t think everyone is going to be allowed to work from home, either.
But they truly have made cars pretty boring inside and out so I suppose I share that lack of interest of our generation if it exists as you say it does. The only cars I care about are old ones.
“And with people in their 20s and 30s (my generation) hardly giving two flips about cars…”
Please stop spreading this myth that’s a result of media misinterpretation of statistics. People are driving less, perhaps – economic factors are responsible for much of this, but it has nothing to do with a lack of interest.
Max is actually correct in his statement. I myself used to love cars. I’m in this “Millennial” generation and this website is about as car-interested as I get anymore. What do my 20-30something coworkers drive? Accord and Camry. We’re too busy and too poor to give a damn (manufacturers don’t offer anything worthwhile, I might add).
It doesn’t matter whether younger generations give “two flips” about cars or not, in most of the country you simply can’t get by without cars.
I live in Indianapolis and unless you live right next to where you work you have to have a car. You have no choice in the matter.
I’m assuming there are stats that say younger people are buying fewer new cars but I imagine that has more to do car prices, insurance prices, ability to get loans, decent jobs, etc, than lack of interest in cars.
I work with young people all day and hardly any of them give two hoots about cars. Most are not even interested in getting their driver’s licence. I live in a heavily urbanised area. Lots of people have given up cars. In my 86 unit townhouse complex there are only 41 cars. It’s just too easy to hop or a bus or a train. Even a cab or two a week is dirt cheap compared to car ownership and parking. When you need a car, you can rent one for $7.99 an hour gas and insurance included. Daily rentals are less than $50 a day. Any new car is going to cost you at least $5000 a year.
So, yes, it is a complete lack of interest. Most of the teens I know are more into their cyber world than cars, about which they knew squat.
Yeah, do you think all places are like that? Come to the US, try getting around without a car.
And all the “young people” I know drive cars. I have no idea how many “flips” they give, but the idea young people don’t care about cars is nonsense.
I’d wager that, if a time machine could any of us back to New York City, Philadelphia or Boston of the 1950s or 1960s, we’d find the same lack of interest in cars among the general population.
Then, as with today, most Americans do not live in those cities. If anything, the country has become even more fragmented since that time in its views and “likes.” What is happening in those cities does not represent the entire country.
No, not every place is the same as where I live, but a lot are. Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, New York, San Fran, all are easy to get around without a car.
I realise there is a myth that Americans all live on ranches in the middle of nowhere, but 80% of Americans live in urban areas now.
I have three teenagers. None are remotely interested in cars.
@Jason, @Geeber — More Americans live in cities than rural areas. The populations of the cities you mentioned have exploded. Young people are moving to cities. People’s interest in vehicles and thus purchases have gone down.
“Urban areas” are not necessarily limited to, or synonymous with, “center city.” The term includes the outer suburbs, which are among the fastest growing areas of most urban areas in the United States.
The fastest growing urban areas in the United States are those in the southern and western regions (which have been designed around the car), and the fastest growing neighborhoods within those urban areas are the outer suburbs.
The demise of the suburb, and, by extension, the automobile, has been greatly exaggerated.
Yanns Mohrtenssen, the movement of young people to the city has been greatly exaggerated, and ignores that many of them move OUT when they hit their 30s and have kids:
“As it turns out, the vast majority of young people in their late teens and 20s – over 80 percent — live outside core cities. Roughly 38 percent of young Americans live in suburban areas, while another 45 percent live outside the largest metropolitan areas, mostly in smaller metro areas.
“To be sure, core urban areas do attract the young more than other age cohorts. Among people aged 15 to 29 in 2007, there is a clear movement to the core cities five years later in 2012 — roughly a net gain of 2 million. However, that’s only 3 percent of the more than 60 million people in this age group.
“Surprisingly, most of this movement to the urban centers comes not from suburbs, but from outside the largest metro areas, reflecting the movement of people from areas with perhaps lower economic opportunity. It also is likely reflective of the intrinsic appeal of metro areas to younger, single people, as well as the presence of many major universities and colleges in older ‘legacy cities.'”
Here’s the rest of the article:
http://www.newgeography.com/content/004084-the-geography-of-aging-why-millennials-are-headed-to-the-suburbs
As I’ve said, the death of the suburb and, by extension, the automobile, have been greatly exaggerated.
Yanns, it doesn’t matter. You still need a car to get around in most cities in the US.
I grew up and lived most of my life in Indianapolis. It’s a pretty big city but you can’t get around without a car. I know one driving age person who doesn’t have a car. One. And you know how he gets around? He bums rides.
Again, it doesn’t matter how many “flips” younger people give about cars, the fact of life in the US is in most places you need a car to get around.
That’s great that in NY you don’t need a car. In most cities in the US you need a car.
I’m not sure why you’re even arguing this. Has there been some study done that says young people are driving less or something?
@Jason — miles driven has decreased 10% the past 10 years. What don’t you get? People drive less, and that sure as hell means young people are driving less (lower/stagnant incomes = less driving). I can assure you almost no young people care about cars. They don’t care because cars/driving is TOO.DAMN.EXPENSIVE. Young people aren’t moving to Indianapolis, I’m sorry; they’re moving to Chicago, Dallas, Austin, NY, Boston, LA, SF, etc. (where a person DOESN’T need a car).
“they’re moving to Chicago, Dallas, Austin, NY, Boston, LA, SF, etc. (where a person DOESN’T need a car).”
I can’t say for the other cities, but I can absitively, posolutely, guaran-damn-tee you that NOBODY is moving to San Francisco because they can’t afford a car. Anybody who can move there could easily afford as many cars as they might want. Most of the people I know who live there have cars, and the one that doesn’t does things like fly airplanes for fun.
@Steve – Um, Google bus, much?
You think people riding the google buses are doing it because they can’t afford cars? Seriously?
Total mileage driven has decreased because we had a nasty recession and a slow recovery, plus the population is getting older. I know people who have given up cars, but they are all OVER the age of 65, which is one of the fastest growing segments of the American population.
I know plenty of young people who are interested in cars. The contention that NO young people are interested in cars is too broad of a generalization.
The link I posted to shows that the fastest growing urban areas are in the Sunbelt. They were all designed around the car. And fastest growing parts of urban areas are the outer suburbs. Remember that, in the United States, there is an actual definition as to what constitutes an urban area. It is not limited to the center city or even the city limits. It includes the surrounding counties.
If I recall correctly, many cities, such as New York and Chicago, are only growing (and really quite slowly) because of immigration. Native-born Americans are moving OUT of those cities. Immigrants tend to be younger than the general population. If it weren’t for immigrants – particularly Hispanic immigrants – our population would either be stagnant or declining.
Again, when one looks at what is really happening, the picture isn’t so clear-cut.
Yann, do you understand how absurd it sounds to someone when you say you can “assure” me young people don’t care about cars lol?
If overall miles driven is down I would imagine that has more to do with the recession, gas prices, and an aging population.
To say young people don’t care about cars, based on your very limited (compared with the millions of young drivers in the US) first hand experience is just ignorant and arrogant.
I work in North Dakota, with a lot of young guys and we make very good money. One of the first things most young guys out here buy is a new vehicle. Out here diesel trucks are what the kids buy. I work with a 19 year old kid who just bought a 50,000 dollar truck.
I have a niece and nephew who are just about to start driving and getting a car is all they talk about.
Young people may not be “moving ” to Indianapolis (funny the population is growing for a place so devoid of “young people”) but there are thousands and thousands of them in the city. Same for places like Cincinnati, Detroit, Cleveland, Tampa, Miami, LA, every city for that matter, and that’s not mentioning small towns or the suburbs, all over the country.
You mention places like NY and Chicago? Have you seen the traffic in those places? It’s pretty bad for places that apparently don’t require cars.
And like someone already pointed out to you, nobody who can’t afford a car is moving to places like NY City or SF. Go check out cost of living in those places.
What you’re saying, “young kids don’t care about cares”, is impossible for you to know, yet you keep stating it like its fact.
You really need to study up on the difference between opinion, anecdotal evidence, and fact.
North Dakota’s entire population of ~700k is smaller than the 20-30something’s population of a city say the size of LA. How do I know? I was BORN there (check out that last name!). Before the oil boomers came to town (‘ya know, 30 years of averaged negative population growth [it’s a fantastic state, however]).
They buy new trucks, that’s great…for now. I know many a sad stories of BOOM & BUST in ND. ND is not typical.
In LARGE CITIES, young people are abandoning cars. More people live in cities than rural areas.
I encourage you to read the series I’ve caught on TTAC regarding this topic!
Yann, Indianapolis is a LARGE city. Again, most places in the US you have no choice, you have to have a car and you have to drive.
As far as North Dakota goes….not sure why you are so argumentative and say things like “know how I know?” or capitalize “BORN” lol. What does you being from North Dakota have to do with anything?
As far as it being a great state…..I have to disagree, there is a very good reason why nobody lived there before the oil boom. I’m just here to make money, I’ve lived in many places around the country (including Chicago, when I was younger, and I had to drive a car there), and ND is by far my least favorite out of those places. It’s tolerable in the summer but in the winter it’s cold as hell, dreary and depressing.
I honestly don’t know why anyone lived here before the oil boom
I am 3 years younger than you and share that interest (paternal grandparents’ cars, too).
If I had to buy a new car I think I’d have to go with a large SUV. Not sure than an XTS or MKZ would really satisfy my desire for size and spaciousness. The 300 I rented in 2012 sure didn’t. A suburban won’t float around like a Fleetwood or Continental but neither will an XTS.
I actually didn’t care for the new MKZ in photos, but in person it is very attractive. And the whole “it’s just a Fusion” schtick that the blogosphere rallies around is getting old. They are quite different, with completely different interiors and sheetmetal. I have sat in both an MKZ and a new Fusion, and the Lincoln is a much nicer place to be. The window trim and grille are both stainless steel, not plastichrome. Best part: the console in the Lincoln is relatively svelte, while the console of the ’14 Fusion my uncle has as a company car is huge! The Lincoln feels like a modern luxury car to me, but at the same time, I won’t be getting rid of my Town Car any time soon!
How are you enjoying the Fleetwood Brougham? If my Cartier hadn’t have dropped into my lap–and been so nice!–I might’ve wound up with a 1990-92 Brougham or 1993-96 Fleetwood instead. I saw these two recently, both are ’93s since they have the square two-spoke steering wheel.
Have you sold the ’77 Electra? I’d enjoy seeing pictures of both it and the Cadillac. Or better yet, write them up for CC!
Clearly the previous gen MKZ was a tarted-up Fusion (different nose cap and revised tail, but the same doors, roofline, etc.). AFAICT the new MKZ shares no body panels with the Fusion, and as you say it’s a damned nice looking car.
In the fall of 08 when I had to buy a car to replace my last management lease car, I ended up getting an 09 Mazda6, because it had cool stuff on it that wasn’t available on the then-current Fusion. Said stuff was available on the MKZ, but I couldn’t justify paying ~10K extra for a car that looked pretty much like the Fusion. Now, I’d think twice about the MKZ.
Haven’t sold the Electra yet, storing it up in my hometown. I will definitely take pictures and send in submissions on both.
As for the ’93 Fleetwood Brougham, I have really mixed feelings. I love the color (silver with burgundy leather interior, right out of the 60s). It rides wonderfully. The L05 is super quiet and the most torquey engine I’ve driven. It’s also awesome that the car hasn’t recorded less than 19 mpg in the time I’ve driven it.
And yet I miss my ’87. The ’93 is actually a bigger car but it’s blander, too. I can’t warm up to the inside: not as much metal, cheaper looking plastic. Out front the hood ornament is smaller and I miss looking out over that fantastic peaked hood on the ’77-’92 body (and which was the same on the ’74-’76). Also miss some of the classic GM/Cadillac touches. The doors don’t lock with that “SMACK” that the ones in my ’87 and in the Electra do. The chrome push button door handles that were on Cadillacs from the 50s are missed. The aero plastic mirrors don’t hold a candle to the classic chrome ones with the Cadillac script. I like the big strip of chrome at the bottom but miss seeing it on the hood and around the taillights. The leather wrapped steering wheel is nice but I preferred the thin plastic tilt/telescope from the older version.
Driving the ’87 felt like I was driving a classic car. This feels like a car designed for an old person. Where the prior generation, as C and D put it, was “1965 with the addition of superb audio”, I feel like I should keep Werther’s Originals in the armrest storage area on this one.
I’ll keep it but if I get enough for the Buick, given how little I have to drive, I’d be tempted to sell this one if I could pick up a ’75-’76 SDV or FWB, or ’75-76 Continental.
The MKZ is no more nor less a Fusion than a Lexus ES is a Camry.
I agree that the new MKZ isn’t just a Fusion but in my humble opinion that kind of goes against the car in some ways. I much prefer having a normal floor shifter compared to the more gimmicky push buttons which leaves the center console looking odd. The dash is too busy and I don’t really like the side view of the Lincoln as it looks rather thick in the middle compared to the Fusion. In a perfect world I would take a Fusion with a 3.7 V6 in a high end trim level with some real wood accents with those snazzy Titanium wheels if such a thing was offered of course.
I think the current XTS is similar to the FWD de Ville or DTS. I can say that the ATS is very much not old school Cadillac nor is it anything like the Cimarron.
There were attempts at sportier looking proposals which might have helped with the chopped down styling of the E/K cars. I think the overly conservative but non-distinctive looks of the released versions hurt them.
Here’s one of them.
That actually looks pretty good, even with the world’s largest cornering light. I like the way the nose leans forward–kind of like the ’88 Regal.
There was another one that I’ve seen that had a nose very similar to the Voyage/Solitaire show cars with pop-up Guide mini-quad head lamps.
I probably would have worn dark sunglasses too…
A cane or guide dog would also work.
+1
Am I the only one that finds it looks like an Eastern Bloc attempt at an ’83 Thunderbird?
A good description.
The Cougar was ALWAYS the BETTER looking of the 2. LOL
Mom bought a new 1983 Mercury Cougar LS back in the day… and I just got rid of my 1984 Mercury Cougar GS.
Sexy cars indeed… and RWD to go.
Funny, I always loved the Bird of that generation and really didn’t care for the Cougar – too GM-looking. That’s one of the rare cases where Ford got the Ford/Mercury distinction right. They were in the same market segment, but appealed to different groups of people. People who liked the Bird generally were cool towards the Cougar, and vice versa.
That is one great looking US-Ford, all the dimensions are just perfect. Also way better looking than the T-Bird from the nineties.
The production Eldo *did* have the exact same rear styling as a Trabant.
.
I see a lot of 1989 Riviera in this one…
The front overhang is way out of proportion with the rear overhang. It looks like the whole body got booted forward on the chassis, and then the wheel arches cut off and repositioned over the wheels.
It’s still tiny enough to look like Barbie’s Dream Cadillac.
“…Cadillac’s 4.1 litre V8…delivers ten ponies less than Buick’s 3.8 liter V6.”
Heck…it delivered ten ponies less than the pushrod Vulcan V6 in the new-for-the-same-year 1986 Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable, which was about a second faster to 60mph and left the Eldo and Seville ages behind in the “race” to the future.
Yup. It’s pretty sad how these stunted “luxury” cars had less power and presence than the mainstream Taurus/Sable introduced at the same time.
When it comes to these cars, I always thought “I don’t know America. That’s why I don’t understand these cars.”
Now I’m wondering whether GM knew America. Or just the GM culture.
It may be important to remember that these were unibody designs rather than the body on frame that the previous models used. When they were in the design phase GM was intent on making them smaller, lighter and more efficient. But GM sort of got out of phase with the need for fuel economy. They may have known that they were not right as they went into production, but probably not much could be done.
“If you don’t have anything nice to say” I don’t.
I found the sales and education stats for Cadillac in the seventies interesting. Education levels were plummetting, just at a time when better-educated boomers were entering the luxury car market. It confirms what I very much experienced at the time: Cadillacs, and the Great Brougham Era, had become a downscale/blue collar phenomena, while imports were riding the boom of the better-educated buyers.
This was a deadly market position for Cadillac to be in, and one they’ve really struggled to climb out of. And it did really start in earnest in about 1971, which was precisely the focus of my very first CC. It really was the beginning of the end. https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1972-cadillac-coupe-deville-a-beginning-as-well-as-the-beginning-of-the-end/
I too remember getting a feeling in the 70s that Cadillac, Lincoln, and Imperial (at least on the East Coast where I lived) were becoming the cars for retired factory workers who wanted to reward themselves after a lifetime of hard work. Well, and Jewish professionals born in the 30s or earlier who would walk before they would drive a German car.
Then I moved to the Detroit area in 78 and found a culture immune to the idea that there was anything wrong with their luxury cars, and that their customers would return after their dalliance with MB and BMW.
Ordinarily when someone posts a vintage road test I put it aside to enjoy later when I’m relaxed and in a good mood. One of the best reads ever was David E. Davis’ review of the ’78 Cadillac Coupe de Ville and I savored every word. Never remember reading that as a kid… I probably skipped over it that’s how brainwashed I was. Another great one was Patrick Bedard’s on the ’76-ish Ford LTD. He was one of the first to use the phrase “doing what Detroit does best” and he liked the a lot car for what it was.
Those were enjoyable because the cars were a bit of a surprise to the writers, and the articles to us. I know exactly what the review of the ’86 Seville and Eldo is going to say. I don’t need a journalist to tell me about a car I already know well. I don’t need to hear their opinion on what has to be the look, feel, etc. being, let me guess, “a big improvement but still a ways from the Europeans”. Right?
For every Bedard there were 10 Detroit-cars-always-suck guys. As others have said these “opinion leaders” pushed GM in a direction they didn’t need to go so quickly. What the industry needed were fewer of these clowns and a freakin’ comments section. Like we have today where tripe can be challenged.
Buff book editors should be guys who can talk eloquently about a car they really like or admire or genuinely hate. One note critics are boring and dangerous without a comments section. Good critics are OK if you don’t know much about cars. The guys who like everything are boring and have no credibility.
Thank you for sharing this story. I remember the downsized era at GM. That is what hurt GM that they are still paying for to this day. As someone said, they over downsized. There was the thought gas was going to be 4 to 5 dollars a gallon at the time, and GM wanted to prepare for that. Well, the market changed, and gas did not reach those prices until years later. They are headed that way right now too. A GM designer that posts on a website said they were given the parameters they had to work, and it was difficult to come up with the right cars. This was the era of GM look a like cars too. I enjoyed the look back as well as others comments. GM started up sizing in 1989. The cars that came out in 1989-1992 are the ones that should have come out in 1985-1986. It is sad to say, the E/K Bodies looked like the smaller N Body cars. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? The 1988 facelifts did help.
GM made up for the error in 1992 at Cadillac.
“There was the thought gas was going to be 4 to 5 dollars a gallon at the time, and GM wanted to prepare for that.”
The thing is these didn’t even get great mileage ratings. Better than the 300E and Jaguars of the day but the Continental and New Yorker Turbo both had the Cadillacs beat.
If these downsized Cadillacs were introduced with a turbo-4 or new V6 and were pulling like 25 combined ratings they would be a lot more forgivable under the “GM expected expensive gas” idea.
Exactly what I was thinking. The dinky little 86 Eldo with the craptacular HT4100 got an average of 18 mpg. according to the EPA which is worse than what the EPA gives to the same year Fleetwood Brougham with the 5.0 L V8.
Really?! GM expected expensive gas? Why didn’t the slap a V6 like the Buick 3800 in them then?
No, I think Caddy didn’t know their asses from a hole in the ground at the time. They wanted to chase the Krauts but they wanted to keep their old geezer (and kitsch loving Brougham fans) bread and butter but they wanted, and wanted and didn’t know what they wanted.
I say they still don’t. I think they just cannot accept that Cadillac fans tend to (at least try) see them as the grand old cars that are awesome highway cruisers with lots of creature comforts. Try as they might to be Bimmers or Benzes, they just aren’t and won’t be. Until GM pulls their collective heads out and embraces the Broughamyness of the likes of Caddy and Buick they will forever be in car limbo. They want to chase the Krauts but the don’t and so their left in the corner holding their…thumb. Yeah, thumb…
Actually these were originally planned to have the 3.8 V6 like the Toronado and Riviera, but at the last minute Cadillac changed their mind and wanted to go with the 4.1 V8 so they had to make changes slightly widen the engine compartment.
Well, that would have made some sense.
I love the Buick V6, but that would have been terrible. The 4.1 was awful but at least it was exclusively awful.
Cadillac buyers couldn’t give a shit about MPG. I’ve given this a lot of thought and I personally think the reality of the situation was the engineering, tooling and dies for a FWD/transverse lineup of cars starting with the X body cost a fortune and was ultimately a smart move for the lower tier brands. The “GM expected expensive gas idea” was totally legitimate in that arena, but what birthed these Cadillacs was really the attempt to utilize the already done engineering(and involuntary beta testing) of the early transverse front drivers and not doing new engineering to actually be the standard of the world with them. They weren’t rebadged Citations of course, but the tooling arrangements certainly would have been similar and easily adaptable.
I think the stubbiness and styling was a reflection of the broad GM lineup of the time. These easily could have been proportioned and designed better with a traditional “RWD look”, more in line with traditional Caddie buyers, as well as German buyers with no real sacrifices(Honda/Acura did it in the 90s). The problem is they wouldn’t look anything like what the rest of the GM lineup did at the time(which were stubby, bland and ugly for efficiency reasons), and assuming GM wanted to preserve the sloan ladder they pretty much had to design Cadillacs in the same vein as the rest so people recognized them being under the GM umbrella. Unfortunately people REALLY recognized that and it backfired.
I’m curious about the E body origins. I know the A body Celebrity was basically a rebodied X car that was debugged, and the J body Cavalier was closely related to the X body too.
Was the Eldo/ Seville a heavily modified X car ( like the first generation Seville) or was it a totally new car?
In way they were totally new, sharing lots of the development with the C and H body FWD cars which started their development a little earlier than the E/K cars, much of what was learned from the development of the X and A body cars was applied to the larger FWD cars, but in a more robust and “beefier” platform. They can all trace their bloodlines back to the TASC (Total Automotive Study Concept) that was started at GM back in 1974, the first fruits of which were the X-cars in 1980.
Re: These easily could have been proportioned and designed better with a traditional “RWD look”,
Actually a transverse mounted engine/transaxle pretty well defines the front proportions of any car. You just can’t get that elegant, RWD dash-to-axle ratio with front drive. A few exceptions exist like the 2nd generation Acura Legend with its longitudinal V6, but then you lose some of the space efficiency/packaging advantages. Which is kind of the point of FWD.
Most downsized RWD cars from the late 70s/80s had significantly shortened dash-to-axle ratios from their predecessors as well though. That area was always wasted space, and when it comes right down to it, luxury is all about unnecessary waste(eew I felt like a Prius owner saying that lol). Packaging efficiency makes good sense on a Chevy Celebrity and maximizing the utility of it’s footprint is a useful trait for their general buyer, but anyone dreaming of buying a Cadillac isn’t dreaming of the packaging efficiency, they’re dreaming of the image and the prestige.
A lengthened cowl would do wonders for these cars even with the transverse layout. They’d still be stuck with the long front overhang but that wouldn’t look so pronounced with the longer wheelbase anyway.
I think you are pretty much right, its just that the gas mileage story is so oft repeated as an explanation for this era’s foibles.
“Cadillac buyers couldn’t give a shit about MPG.”
Yes, but CAFE does. Another tac to take could have been to just pay the guzzler tax and call it a day. But even that would have left them open to criticism from certain circles.
Thanks very much for posting this. It reminded me of the reason I read C/D then and the reason I don’t read it now. Yes, kids, there was a time when it was actually literate.
Yes, these cars were pretty embarrassing, to say the least. It marked the era and END of the Great All American styling of domestic cars… it was when “if you can’t beat em, join em” became the norm in the US car styling studios.
All the US automakers wanted to compete and FAIL(Cimarron??), against the European and Japanese luxury sedans(Audi 5000, Acura Legend, BMW 530i, Mercedes 560SL, Nissan Maxima, Toyota Cressida, Volvo 760 etc…).
Back then, you could tell a Lincoln from a Toyota from a VW… now, they ALL look alike.
Back in the early 80’s we still had the SOLID rwd cars like the Dodge St. Regis, Electra 225, Lincoln Mark VI, Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham and Chrysler Newport… then in 1985 or 1986, these idiot carmakers found some kinda STUPID fascination with FWD.
Really??
You used the adjective “solid” with St. Regis in the same sentence? LMFAO.
Don’t you think Cadillac’s current styling is very distinctive? They have done a brilliant job of creating an instantly recognizable design language that drapes itself nicely across everything from 3 series fighters to giant SUVs. They broke the tyranny of the blob, if you will.
Hindsight is a great thing and many of you seem to have it.
Sure, anyone can play Monday Morning Quarterback. But I think all of us old enough to recall the introduction of the ’86 Seville/Eldo were thinking the same thing at the time. Who the hell is going to buy these cars?
These cars were a cynical and atrocious attempt at ripping off GM’s loyal, beehive wearing clientele, who were fleeced and then croaked, never to buy cars again. The supply of the Greatest Generation was rapidly dwindling at this point and GM seemed hell bent to fleece the old dears one last time. By 1990 most had bought their last car.
What is interesting here is the CD article. The buff rags don’t make a peep about what goes on inside a car company anymore, they only regurgitate the pablum their masters feed them but that was not the case for CD in 1985. I had a subscription for years and really enjoyed articles such as this one. Even then it was plain to see GM was on the death spiral, yet the agony took more than another two decades, at enormous financial and social cost. CD reported just that, making it actual, real, journalism!
When Csere took over CD it went down the toilet the first issue he ran and I stopped reading it, let alone buying it. That was sad, because I used to eagerly wait for it in the mail.
I loved CD back in the David E. days. Who else had the stones to make up fake, but funny, letters to the editor? As a kid, I laughed whenever they lampooned Motor Trend. Today, I might find it silly and juvenile. But back in the early 80s it sort of transitioned me out of Mad magazine.
Same with me, I loved David E Davis, he was a man with a real wit and sense of humour. He also loved cars, too, and was not afraid to say it like it was.
+1
I feel that the William Jeanes era of Car and Driver was their last best attempt at maintaining their hertitage. He was all about improving the magazine, doing away with bribes from manufacturers in the form of decadent press junkets, press cars full of cash, and high paying advertising editorial writing. As a result, for a while the opinions expressed in the magazing reconciled with my own experiences driving then current cars. When he went, so did any vestige of integrity. Now there are chosen makes, and they will always get favorable reviews, even to the point of minimizing their shop rat products’ service records in writing long term wrap ups. Audi and Porsche anyone? Then you’ve got the auto-porn format. I don’t care how many variations of their 4 products Porsche produces. At the least, they don’t all deserve covers. Look at a ‘road test review.’ There are a dozen entries for each German manufacturer, 3 or 4 for each US one, and 4 or 5 for the Japanese majors. Give me a break. Not everyone buys an expensive, unreliable car, and German cars are more like sausages than ever. Review one and point out that it is available in different lengths and be done with it.
I was 12 when these came out. From my position on the other side of the globe, I couldn’t understand what GM was thinking. The weird exterior proportions, the interior that looked like my cousin’s Lada’s in quality and design finesse…the Sevillorado didn’t match up with any of the new car styling that Australia’s Wheels and the UK’s Car magazines were showing me. The Fleetwood looked tail-draggingly chintzy and old and the Eldoville was just insane; compared with the Lincoln LSC, 12 year old me thought the Caddies were aimed at blind old people. So it was at that point that I wrote Cadillac off – with the intensity that only a 12 year old can muster! It was only in the mid-00s that I began to pay Cadillac any attention again, and only because of the ’98+ Seville which was showing up ex-Japan in RHD. Since then, of course, I love their art & science theme, and have grown to rate Cadillac as the #1 American new car I’d like to own. I’m so glad they grew through the ‘lowest-common-denominator’ appeal that the’86 Seville/Eldo were chasing…
This article shows what a wonderful, informative and enjoyable car magazine “Car & Driver” was during DED’s reign as it’s publisher, moulder & shaper.
I refuse to renew my subscription to what it is today.
I renewed my subscription in December ’13, and after the January ’14 issue didn’t have the traditional end-of-year reviews and humour etc I kinda wished I hadn’t. But I have to subscribe as C&D is no longer retailed in NZ. It has just enough of the traditional cynicism and irreverence for me to find it a good read compared with most of the other magazines out there – which seem to be aimed at, well, teenage boy racers. I guess in the age of all car news being on the internet and instant it’s hard for magazines to maintain their traditional market.
Cadillac’s got it goin on right now…they’re not totally out of the woods but here’s one thing I think could help…
Print the above C/D commentary, frame it and hang in the general manager’s office with a huge caption…
“NEVER AGAIN!”
“LEST WE FORGET” would also work.
I’m really not a Porsche fan…sure there’ve been certain 356’s and 911’s I’d like…but what I’d really like to see is Cadillac tacitly adapt Porsche’s philosophy…or more appropriately…re-adapt it…
“We will always build one less Porsche than the market demands”.
These Downsized FWD 1986 E-Bodies collectively known as the Oldsmobile Toronado, Buick Riviera & Cadillac Eldorado along with the FWD K-Bodied Cadillac Seville (which was technically a 4 Door version of the Eldorado) were one size larger than the FWD J,X,L & N-Bodies. They were actually identical in size with the FWD A-Bodies (Chevrolet Celebrity, Pontiac 6000, Oldsmobile Ciera & Buick Century) & RWD F-Bodies. The limited edition Buick Reatta & Cadillac Allante which were derived from the larger FWD 1986 E/K-Bodies were actually closer in size to FWD J,X,L & N-Bodies and even the RWD Y-Body Chevrolet Corvette. You can make a size difference judgment on this 1980-1996 Buick Car Photo Montage Compilations which I had created almost a month ago.
I think the average sales rate is very telling:
1975-79 Seville 214,659 total – average 43,000 per year
1980-85 Seville 198,155 tot – average 33,000
1986-91 Seville 143,112 – average 24,000
Sales of the 1992+ Seville was back to 40,000 or so. Obviously sales of the small Seville were bad, but the previous model was not good either. I did own an 89 Riviera for a while. I did not like the dashboard design nor did I like the poor rear visibility that the C-piller gave you.
Some of you have thought that the big sedans should not have gone FWD. Looking at what Ford did, I have to think if GM had done the same, we would not have gotten the 2003 CTS, or the current generation ATS and CTS models. This would not be a good thing.
I finally read the article and it wasn’t so bad. At least it was written by a gentleman I respect and like from the David E. days. Like I said it was obvious GM was completely obsessed with getting smaller / higher tech / more European. Another important point from the article was that Chuck Jordan wanted to avoid the “fear and loathing” from another car like the ’80-85 bustle-back Seville. Or maybe just distance himself from his predecessor Bill Mitchell as human beings are wont to do.
Proof of the obsession with European cars was the “arcane” handling data shared by GM engineers during the CandD the test drive. Anyone who thinks GM learned its lesson from the ’86 cars and went straight to the ’03 CTS has obviously forgotten about the Catera which was an even more blatant attempt to go European. That had to fail before they could get to the new CTS direction.
The real problem, as mentioned in the side bar, was that GM didn’t know what it wanted Cadillac to be and ended up trying to make everyone happy. That comes from lack of quality leadership. The comments that the ’86 cars were half-assed are totally off the mark. It wasn’t that they didn’t try hard enough they tried TOO hard but in the wrong direction. All those new platforms, suspensions (with IRS just liken the journos demanded) and engines for the compact, mid, full and luxury segments is not a half-assed effort.
I like how Michael Jordan brought up the Mark VII LSC at the end making the point that not all is lost with domestic luxury makers. A really interesting point would have been how the LSC eschewed European hardware and radical downsizing to focus on the basics of styling and performance, done up in a unique and relevant way. In that regard the LSC was the original Seville reincarnated. GM finally got it right in ’03 with the CTS but even that car didn’t truly blossom until Lutz came around to give it proud fins and a personality.
Ironically if Ford was in better shape financially they may have gone more GM with the LSC. Such was the relentless pressure from places like the buff books.
That was part of the problem that ultimately led to GM’s bankruptcy. Beginning with the X-cars, it seemed as though GM spent a ton of money on new vehicles and all-too-often achieved a mediocre (or worse) result.
Clearly GM (or Cadillac) did not learn from the 86 Seville because we get the 92 FWD Seville and then years of ever more complex computer controlled suspensions. Then we get the 98 FWD Seville with a stiff body structure. The Catera may have been a signal that Cadillac (or GM) was beginning to realize that a RWD platform was needed.
Your comments about leadership is right on. I think that the deadly sin at GM was leadership at the top.
Had the Deville line remained on the RWD platform in the 80’s like the Brougham (successor to the Fleetwood Sixty of 1938) I am not sure where Cadillac would be now. Would there still be body on frame cars?
Yes maybe so or at least more that are RWD. A BOF vehicle with decidedly American styling is what larger SUVs are all about and those have been plenty popular. You might say well they tried that but only old people buy BOF cars. Maybe so but we will never know because the domestics didn’t make a RWD sedan that was appropriate for younger people until the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger.
GM could have done something like that in the 80s by just going slower and putting more emphasis on styling. The Charger seems to be selling better than ever and is a terrific car. The hardware underneath is ancient!!
The attitudes at that time (1980s) were different. By the mid-1980s, we had witnessed the government bailout of Chrysler and near-collapse of Ford. The build quality of many mid- and late 1970s cars was abysmal, and emissions controls were sapping whatever performance was left in the drivetrains.
These factors, along with two serious gasoline “scares” (in retrospect, they weren’t shortages, as there wasn’t any real shortage of gasoline), served to discredit the “old” way of doing things. In those days, the “old way” meant body-on-frame cars with V-8s and I-6s. The Japanese cars at the low end, and Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Volvo at the high end, were the way of the future.
The other night I pulled out my old copy of the Brock Yates book, The Decline and Fall of the American Industry, published in 1983. What did Detroit do wrong? Well, just about everything….and his view was the prevailing one at that time.
Of course, in retrospect, Yates only got it half right. Since the 1980s, the market has divided. Old-school buyers (who, incidentally, aren’t necessarily old people) who would have driven a Cutlass Supreme or Caprice Classic in the late 1970s now buy full-size pickups and SUVs. They really don’t want a BMW 3-Series, or any other passenger car.
Middle-class buyers who do want passenger cars have decisively shown their preference for cars with Japanese-style quality control and attention to detail, and American-style convenience features (cruise control, air conditioning, multiple power assists, etc.), all powered by mechanicals that are as easy to ignore as the best GM V-8 mated to a TurboHydramatic.
As for the Europeans? VW survives as a niche brand that offers an alternative to Honda, Toyota, Ford and Chevrolet. Volvo is a shadow of itself, and Saab is no more, while Audi, BMW and Mercedes survive in the upper reaches of the market by offering customers attractive lease deals that allow them to turn in the car before the warranty ends.
Actually Lincoln did fall victim to the same thinking later with the LS. Here was a damn good RWD platform and what did they do? They stuck a European-looking body on it and the car was a dud from Day 1. The Jag X-Type took a completely different approach and, at least at the beginning, was very popular. X-Types were all over So. Cal.
So it wasn’t just design by a committee. It was tossing out the good DNA with the bad and trying to copy Europe.
Three words: design by committee.
Cadillac didn’t get the memo on the proper malaise era of the automotive industry which spanned from 1973-1983 according to many. Nope Caddy’s malaise era instead spanned from 1981-1991 with such memorable mistakes as the 8-6-4 nonsense, std diesel engines in Sevilles, credit option carbureted Buick V6’s in most of there lineup, the weird butt of the 80-85 Seville, the disastrous HT 4100, the Cimmaron, the radically downsized C-body Deville/Fleetwood and then the radically clown sized E body Eldo and Seville featured here. And lets not forget the masterful 85 HP 4.3 V6 diesel
offered on the downsized C-body Devilles and Fleetwoods. I’ll never forget as a 14 year old talking to a new Deville diesel owner who said he liked the car and the mileage but passing another car on the open road was next to impossible. Oh the memories!
I had a 1978 Olds Regency diesel V8. It was not fast at accelerating, but once up to cruising speed it would seem to climb hills with ease. The fuel consumption was good with it averaging about 28 MPG on long trips. But my 86 Electra T-type 3.8 V6 did the same with far better performance.
Exactly. GM thrived during the most tumultuous decade, one that bankrupt Chrysler. People said back then GM was being arrogant and sitting on their asses. So they pulled out all the stops in record time and totally screwed up in the 80s.
They should have slow walked everything after the X-body because they ran out of time and money to focus on the basis. The article said they had cut back to one senior person in Cadillac marketing?
I wonder if the lack of a real marketing department for Cadillac was related to the infamous Roger Smith reorganization, which had started before the 1986 cars debuted. The reorganization reduced the divisions to shells of their former selves. Which was probably the whole idea. GM wanted to take away as much control as possible from the divisions. I’m pretty sure that the Roger Smith reorganization took all engineering powers away from the divisions, although Cadillac did succeed in having this reversed in the late 1980s.
I believe that this independence for Cadillac, however, was not permanent, as GM had a now-forgotten brush with bankruptcy in the early 1990s. Corporate leadership continued to exercise strict controls over all of the divisions in the 1990s.
Yes it’s like the car guys weren’t around anymore. There was no one there to say “hey if we make it look 100% better we will make 200% more money.”
I’m sure they used the failure of the ’80 Seville to marginalize Bill Mitchell’s earlier contributions. People think good styling is free which is totally wrong. It takes talented designers of course but also extra budget. There was no budget left after all the platform investment.
From what I’ve read, there was considerable pressure within the company to cut costs, and one way to do it was to simplify the designs of the cars. The Bill Mitchell cars we love today often involved expensive body engineering to achieve quality stampings of complex body panels, bumpers, glass, etc. One look at the 1971-73 boat tail Rivieras should give everyone an idea of where the money went on that car. The bumpers alone look pretty complex.
The decision to give Mitchell’s position to Irv Rybicki instead of Chuck Jordan supposedly stemmed from the desire of GM management to have a “team player” in charge of styling. “Team player” in this case meant, “Someone who won’t throw a tantrum when we demand vehicles that are simple, relatively cheap and easy to manufacture instead of stylish.” Chuck Jordan was a close protégé of Mitchell, and his choice of successor, so the decision to go with Rybicki was, in many ways, a repudiation of Mitchell’s design philosophy.
The continued success of the Mercedes, and lackluster sales of the 1980-85 Seville, probably confirmed that choice in eyes of the GM management. They looked at the Mercedes and concluded that luxury car buyers didn’t care much about style, so GM could save some money and make the new Cadillacs look plain, too.
It’s also important to remember that Roger Smith’s reorganization essentially abolished the old Fisher Body organization. With the decision to go with unitized construction across the board, it was felt that there wasn’t a need for a separate Fisher Body organization. Unfortunately, within Fisher Body resided much of the informal knowledge of how to actually manufacture a car. That was a big reason as to why the initial quality of these Cadillacs was terrible.
Starting with the Roger Smith reorganization attempt, the 1980s were a decade of chaos for GM, and these cars reflect that chaos. Chrysler and Ford hit the skids in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and were forced to make massive changes in their structure sooner. Being smaller, and much less consistently successful up until that point, it was easier for a strong leader to make the necessary changes within those companies as compared to GM.
GM, meanwhile, was large enough, and had enough of a head start in the downsizing process, to ride out the severe 1980-82 recession without making too many meaningful changes in the way it did business. But once the good times returned, GM found itself in big trouble.
“The Bill Mitchell cars we love today often involved expensive body engineering to achieve quality stampings of complex body panels, bumpers, glass, etc.”
+100 on that and everything else you said.
It’s interesting that, while Cadillac has managed to bounce back from its low point, journalism in general has been in a continuous slide. Look at what has happened to Time and Newsweek. They are shadows of their former selves…as is our local newspaper.
The successor to the Special Interest Autos is just as bad…no real historical context or background information is provided of the feature cars. There is also too much cheerleading for the auction houses and the “collector car as investment” ideal in general. My favorite article was the “analysis” of the values of early 1960s full-size Pontiac convertibles a few years ago. The magazine writers chided anyone who was waiting for a decline in values of collector cars. Meanwhile, the figures they presented with the article showed that these Pontiacs had declined by about $10,000 in value, and this particular Pontiac had failed to meet its reserve at the big-name auction.
The sidebar to this article sounds like the dilemma Lincoln has found itself in today. At least Cadillac seems to have found a sense of direction again.
Cadillac saw that the sports sedan market was a place they needed to have a serious contender in. Getting something in that market was a long process. I think Cadillac is trying to be the Mercedes of GM, rather than the BMW of GM.
Lincoln’s are not in the sports sedan market at all. But as FWD luxury cars they may be OK. They may compare well with the Cadillac XTS.
The XTS seems like the dog of the Cadillac lineup currently, a FWD placeholder for the big Caddie since they don’t have any RWD platforms like the ATS and CTS have in that size. Lincoln has a whole lineup of placeholders, so in that sense it compares well, but does anyone actually want any of them? (I can’t say I’ve noticed many XTSs since they debuted)
Sales seem OK, but without a DTS or Deville name on them, the old school Cadillac owners may not want one. I think the new CTS is the best Cadillac to buy, but expensive. The ATS is small and definitely a firm ride.
The thing with the Lincoln placeholders is they don’t come across as placeholders, they come across as permanent embodiments of Lincoln’s vision for the future (says he from afar in a country where new Lincolns have never been sold). No-one wants them because they don’t offer anything that’s perceptibly different. Heck, Kia and Hyundai sell large RWD V8 sedans and Lincoln doesn’t? Says it all for Lincoln’s (mis)management and (lack of) self-identity really.
Cadillac (and GM) wanted to have it both ways. Cadillac wanted to appeal to buyers who were defecting to the European luxury marques (there was no Lexus at this point), but it also wanted to retain the old-school luxury car buyers. Add an over-riding concern about penny-pinching, and the result was a for disaster. These cars certainly didn’t appeal to people who aspired to a Benz or a BMW 3-Series, while more conservative buyers headed over to the Lincoln-Mercury showrooms for a last fling with a Town Car.
Cadillac sales were quite good through the 80’s and into the early 90’s. Sales after 1995 decline.
The market as a whole had rebounded in the 1980s. Lincoln essentially closed the gap that had long existed between it and Cadillac prior to those years, while the luxury imports were selling better than ever.
Cadillac may have enjoyed decent overall sales, but it was losing ground to its competitors (both domestic and foreign). Plus, in the status “wars,” Cadillac was definitely the loser. Lots of my college classmates aspired to own a BMW or a Mercedes during these years. I can’t think of anyone who wanted a Cadillac. That was your granddad’s car.
Young people wanting BMW’s is why Cadillac wanted the Cimarron. Why they thought it would work is beyond me. I also think the 75 Seville was put into production to counter Mercedes defectors, which did work until the 1980 Seville.
GM’s problem was that most younger buyers were thinking most GM products were your father’s car or even your granddad’s car. But GM’s market share in the early 60’s (at nearly 50%) was not sustainable.
There was nothing wrong with the idea of the Cimarron. Cadillac needed that type of car. The problem was with the execution of the idea.
GM needed to do what Toyota did when it was planning to take on Mercedes with Lexus. Namely, GM needed to carefully study why people bought the cars, and then be prepared to spend the money necessary to make a solid competitor.
Instead, GM degraded the Cadillac name by offering a J-car with dual headlights and a leather interior. To add insult to injury, Cadillac then marked up the price of the Cimarron by a huge amount over that of the Chevrolet Cavalier.
The current ATS is probably what the Cimarron needed to be but GM was going FWD at that point. Your point that GM (not just Cadillac) should have looked carefully at why people were buying what bought is true. GM was really just throwing poorly thought out cars across the whole market.
I’ve posted before that the Cadillac J-car was an 11th hour marketing decision that many in Cadillac weren’t happy with, but dealers in 1979-1980 were crying for a small car like those BMW and Saab dealers were offering, many dealers threatened to or did dual up with a foreign luxury make, which was a big no-no for Cadillac upper management, so the Cadillac J-car was a go and it was going to be out by Summer 1981, but by then most of the work had been done and then to add insult to injury they only approved a budget to make only slight changes to the car to make it a “Cadillac”.
This was bad news from the get go, if they would have been given a bigger budget and maybe another year or two to tweak the J-car further(if they even should have used that as a base), maybe we would be saying different things about it today.
I know that the Cimarron was a hurry up we need it car for Cadillac. There was a write up in one of the magazines, and I subscribed to Motor Trend, Car and Driver, Automobile,and Road & Track at various times, all at times. Anyway that article indicated that the Cimarron with better tires and upgraded suspension, was expected to compete with BMW.
I did not know that the dealers were crying for the Cimarron. I thought that the dealers thought the Cimarron was a horrible monstrosity for them to sell. If Cadillac might have waited a year, they could have used the Buick Skyhawk, which offered an OHC engine and Automatic Touch Climate Control. But even so, for the Cimarron to compare with a European import, it would need RWD I think. Audi’s, with AWD, are good, but seldom are more than third place in comparisions.
Well remember that at the time FWD was the greatest thing since sliced bread, the FWD Saab 900 was gaining lots of sales from the same customers Cadillac thought it was loosing, Audi’s were FWD, Saab used to be mentioned in the same breath as BMW and Audi(not to mention Peugeot and Volvo not FWD, I know, but there used to be just more the BMWMBAUDI in the import luxury field) it was also rumored in the early 80’s that the new “mini-Mercedes” which became the 190 was also going to be FWD.
GM did have a plan with FWD. For general purpose use, FWD is very good. But the luxury market is more complicated.
One thing I had not looked at before, but if wikipedia is right, the 86 Seville is very close to the size of the E-class (or maybe the 300) Mercedes of the mid eighties. This may have been Cadillac’s target for sizing the Seville. The FWD Deville is several inches longer.
Sadly those Caddies looked too much like the N body cars of the time. They just seem to scream Somerset and Skylark
A great refresher on the Mini E-Body. have to check my ‘library’ of Car and Driver at home, but I think in the July or August 1985 they had a preview of the 1986 Oldsmobile Toronado – with all those glorious buttons and digital readouts – that included a side article on the new GM Hamtramck factory. The article was well written, but its topic was even sadder than downsizing. The razing of an entire neighborhood – Poletown – to build a new factory was a tad depressing. With all the factories they were closing down, one would think they could have renovated and caused less upheaval.
The interesting trivia about the GM Poletown Plant was that they were able to move everything to make the new factory……..except for one Jewish graveyard, Beth Olem, which still resides on the Poletown plant property, GM allows visitors before Yom Kippur and Passover, the rest of the time it’s off limits.
This space left intentionally blank.
I have this to say about the ’86 Eldo and Seville:
You and Jon are pretty much the only guys who followed the rules. The rest us just couldn’t resist.
Lol, +1 and congrats Jon and Roger!
I remember this exact article vividly as my Mom had totaled her 1979 Riviera in November of 1985 and my folks were looking for a replacement for it right when this article was out. They both hated the new downsizwed deVille, and Dad thought these cars looked “silly” – in fact, we searched high and low for a new leftover 1985 Riviera, Toronado or Eldorado but couldn’t find any colors that Mom liked. In fact the dealers had sold out of most of them because the new replacements were so small and unloved. Mom ended up getting a 3 year old Jaguar XJ-6 which she loved (until it started giving us electrical issues.) The ironic thing is that my Dad ended up buying a new 1990 Coupe deVille which he absolutely LOVED. He had that car for the final 3 years of his life. It was very refined, roomy and truly felt like a Cadillac. And to think it was only 4 years after he said these new downsized Caddys were “silly”.
By 1990 the Deville had its styling “updated” and the look was more traditional Cadillac. I think that the 1985 Deville’s were awkward looking. The downsized Riviera was not bad, but the dashboard styling was poor. I think the worst thing about the E-K bodies of this era is the dashboard styling. The second worst thing is that the bodies did look too much like the N-bodies (Pontiac Grand Am for one).
And my “modern, forward thinking” friends make fun of me for holding on to my rear wheel drive Lincoln Town Car??
Re: Yann & Jason…
“Oh the humanity!”
When I first saw these in 1986 (15 years old) I was embarrassed. Loved Cadillacs but not these. In time I did warm up to the sportier versions. I recently picked up a mint 89 STS for a song and just love it, Even more than my new Chevy Volt. It’s comfortable, opulent and a great ride. Can’t wait to pick up my new 1990 Eldorado touring coupe this weekend. Only 60k on the clock and flawless. The E body collection is now compleat.
1988 trofeo convertible
1989 Rivera
1990 reatta convertible