(first posted in 2010 at TTAC; on 9/6/2012 at CC. Undoubtedly my most controversial and least understood GM DS. The comments are even better than the post itself.)
In 1977, GM offered the above two vehicles for sale. Squint a bit; can you see a certain fundamental similarity? Yes, the exterior skins and styling are somewhat different, but beneath the vinyl top and some other superficialities, you’ll find a lot in common, as is obviated by their shared basic architecture. They both rode on essentially the same platform/suspension, although the bottom one’s rear wheels were set back three inches to provide a touch more leg room. Both were powered by versions of GM’s fine 350 (5.7-liter) V8 engines; the version in the blue car made 170 hp vs. 180 hp in the green one.
The Chevy Nova (top), with more than a hint of BMW in its styling and underpinnings shared with the Camaro, was perhaps the best handling American sedan of its time. It was priced from $3,500 ($12.5k adjusted). The Seville (bottom), which was aimed at the Mercedes S Class, went out the door for about $14k ($50k adjusted)–or four times as much. Can you tell where this is going?
Admittedly, the Seville had its charms, mainly in the eyes of affluent, middle-aged women who had been hankering for a smaller, easier-to-park Caddy for years. And lest you protest the Seville’s DS categorization, keep in mind that the Cimarron, the universally-acclaimed all-time GM DS turkey, cost less than twice as much as its donor Cavalier. Yes, the Nova-based Seville undoubtedly proved to be among the more profitable vehicles in GM history, but at what cost? It also proved to be one more milestone in Cadillac’s long decline.
The Seville owes its existence to Mercedes, whose (then) superbly crafted and relatively compact sedans were making serious inroads into the American luxury market of the late ’60s and early ’70s. In contrast, the Big Three’s luxury cars had followed a more dubious evolutionary model: cancer. Eventually, their unchecked growth (especially considering the usual one or two persons aboard) reached the inevitable, terminal limit; historically, car-pooling and flashing one’s wealth have been mutually exclusive activities.
Women, who tend to be a bit less obsessed with exaggerated length then men, had been telling Cadillac for years that they’d like a smaller edition. The 1961-1962 Park Avenue with its shortened tail was a minor concession, but women weren’t exactly the decision-makers back then, especially not at GM. Eventually came 1971 Cadillacs that were over-the-top big, and none the better for it; quality was down, and they looked and felt like a tarted up Chevy Caprice. Meanwhile, Mercedes sales boomed. The Cadillac formula was broken, but it would be decades before they actually figured out the new luxury-car paradigm. Did they ever?
The Seville represented the first step in what Cadillac thought was the right direction. And Cadillac was quite clear in that the major driver of the Seville’s existence was Mercedes. Unfortunately for GM, the Seville’s successful first few years sent the wrong signals and only accelerated Cadillac’s demise. That was the bittersweet aspect of cars like the Seville, which helped propel GM’s 1978 sales to an all-time high of 9.66 million with a 46% market share. When women are tearing overpriced Novas out of your hands, it takes a while for that flush of flattery and pride to dissipate…say, about a quarter-century. Pride goeth before the fall.
Could GM have done things differently? They could have looked to Germany, where Opel built their Kapitan-Admiral-Diplomat luxury sedans to compete against the Mercedes S-Class. It would have been a logical starting point. The latest version, which dated back to 1969, had handsome lines (that undoubtedly influenced the Seville), featured a DeDion semi-independent rear suspension, and was built with precision–a bit too much precision, as it turned out.
The inability to maintain Opel’s precise panel gap tolerances in its U.S. factories forced GM to abandon the idea of building it stateside. But who or what to blame for the Nova-based S-Class fighter that was ultimately produced? The GM bean counters, who said it would be cheap and viable to cobble something together from X-body components? Or was it just Detroit’s old and entrenched belief that they alone knew what Americans wanted or deserved?
The Seville did provide a break in GM styling, and it was a breath of fresh air–at least until it became stale. It represented the tight and boxy new design paradigm at GM, and was the standard bearer of their switch from obese-looking seventies’ bulgemobiles to a crisp and very boxy future. Unfortunately, a virtually identical look now graced the entire GM line, especially the A-body intermediates. The rather bracing effect of the Seville’s arrival, in 1975, was short-lived: Within a few years, everything from GM looked like a Seville. No wonder the gen2 Seville was so desperate, and even more toxic.
OK, so the Seville wasn’t exactly a Nova with a squared off roof and gaudy interior, although there’s a lot the two really did share, as this post on this “Noville” coupe clarifies. GM’s prodigious engineering talent had worked feverishly to give it the kind of quietness and soft ride appropriate to a Caddy. Indeed, its ride was as smooth and soft as every American luxury car of the time, so long as the pavement stayed smooth and the curves gentle. But the Chevy-to-Caddy transformation had added 1,000 pounds (!) of weight to the Seville, which naturally hampered performance. As averaged from two contemporary road tests, it ambled from 0-to-60 in a leisurely 13.2 seconds, and reached the quarter-mile in 18.3, while turning in mediocre, mid-teens fuel economy–and all against a backdrop of proud GM trumpeting of its new (Bendix) Electronic Fuel Injection! A unit that turned out to be quite troublesome too. The Nova could run rings around the Seville, but did luxury car buyers care about these details? Well, yes and no.
The buyers of Mercedes diesels didn’t; but they were after something else, which they sure as hell didn’t find in the disastrous diesel Seville that appeared in 1978. Buyers of Mercedes were looking for two things: superb quality, and/or the prestige that came along with it, even in a poky 240D. The Seville sold well enough, but just not at the expense of Mercedes. Its size and buyer affluence, especially in California, merely made it the Caddy for latecomers to the M-B/BMW party–and, most likely, to the last of their own.
That Cadillac was clueless about the rise of Mercedes and BMW was evident in the Seville’s interior design and instrument panel. Let’s not waste time analyzing them; it was obvious which one pointed to the future. Cadillac still insisted that it had something unique, or at least distinctly American, to say about the design of luxury-car interiors and instrument panels until finally caving in with a very M-B-inspired look in the gen4 Seville.
There is one good thing to be said about the gen1 Seville: It went only downhill from the start, and its wretched successors will have their own days of reckoning here soon enough. Of course, the Seville also spawned a whole generation of imitators (Lincoln Versailles, Chrysler Fifth Avenue) and custom freaks that blighted the vehicular landscape with garish and kitschy faux-luxury half-padded roofs, crests, and hood ornaments for at least a decade-and-a-half.
PS: GM’s Deadly Sins does not mean the specific cars lack redeeming features, or are “deadly” in or of themselves. It is a continuing series of the many steps GM took toward its eventual demise. The Seville may have sold well in its day, but undermined Cadillac’s former position of leadership in the luxury car field, which it soon surrendered to Mercedes and other import brands. The gen1 Seville may have been handsome and rode smoothly, but the expectations of luxury buyers were changing quickly, and the Seville failed to meet them. It was not until the CTS that Cadillac began to fully embrace the changed realities of the luxury car market; about three decades too late. Here is a further explanation of the Purpose and Nature of GM’s Deadly Sins.
“Regarding handling: all these X-based cars, from Camaro to Seville had excellent smooth road handling potential, depending on the specific suspension calibration. But hit a rough patch on a windy road, or just a rough straight road, and the difference between them and the Merc immediately becomes painfully evident. Handling is a mufti-faceted concept; the ability to “handle” rough and variable roads without getting flustered is more important for a luxury car than high skid pad numbers.”
“Case in point: this evening, on my way home in my Acura TL, I was on a rough road with a curve and a railway track in the apex. The Acura sailed over it at 80 km/h with absolutely no variation in line, bobbing or weaving.
Any solid axle RWD American car ever built would have been crashing and bounding over a road like that.
Stiff bodies and four wheel independent suspension have totally transformed how cars handle”
Now the BS is really getting deep! You do know that you’re comparing apples to oranges. First off why include the Nova and Camaro in your comment? Those cars aren’t even in the same classification of the two models we are arguing about. We are talking “percieved Luxury cars” aren’t we? OK I’m not familiar with what models of cars that you have actually owned over the years Paul but I’m guessing the Seville wasn’t one of them. To assume a car handles crappy(which the Seville doesn’t) because it has leaf springs is absurd. I see you been drinking that “German Engineering” kool aid again. I never understand why somebody makes a comment about throwing a car into a winding part of the road especially if it wasn’t meant to be driven that way. You mean to say you drive like an idiot on ocassion? I own several cars. Everything from muscle/sports cars to station wagons. Why in the heck would I want to attempt something that is beyound a cars capabilty? I have no doubt that you could probably drive a Seville at 9/10ths and it would be comparable to your MB but why? The only reason the MB is more composed in those conditions is the fact that those cars were built in Germany where you can drive like an idiot on certain parts of the autobahn. You darn well know if we had unlimited speeds here in the USA that GM would have turned up the screws a notch too.
And spoken in true knuckleheadedness too. Again comparing apples to oranges. Comparing a new car to an 37 year old car! Stiff bodies? OK lets compare peaches to peaches. That Seville is 20 times more stiffer than anything coming to these shores from Japan. Real American steel that was pressed into panels at least 100% thicker than any import.The only drawback was the front subframe isolated by rubber cushions. After a few years of agressive driving it might have felt like there was a hinge down there. Now go out and compare your TL to something new.I think that would be Impala/Malibu? and Fusion. Yep same independent suspensions. You just got to love it when somebody can state an opinion on their own misinformed biased information.
I try to make my observations from the eyes of those other than me or in other words the less experienced. I’m a regional SCCA Solo2 champion. Strap me into either one of the cars in our discussion and I’d drive circles around all if not most of you. So my view on these arguments is a little obtuse.
Hey. Anybody remember a story Car&Driver did back around 1978 give or take a year? Don Sherman took a 1st gen Seville and upgraded the suspension. Straped on some prototype(later production) TransAm WS6 parts on it. IIRC did some Euro mods to the exterior and created what was most likely the very first Seville STS.
I can only respond to the first part, since I didn’t write the other comment.
The Seville, like many GM cars, was capable of handling very well indeed, but like all of them, those qualities tended to diminish quickly depending on road surface and conditions. That’s not just my opinion, but has been reflected pretty commonly in the press and others’ experience over the years.
Admittedly, a very large percentage of Sevilles were not driven in circumstances that would test the limits of its suspension capabilities. And I never said the Seville didn’t or wouldn’t adequately meet the needs of those that bought it back then.
Nevertheless, there’s no doubt in my mind that Meredes’ superior suspension technology afforded greater ability to deal with a wider range of possible circumstances, and furthermore, as proof of that, every luxury car adopted a variation of its suspension sooner or later. As other aspects of its advanced engineering.
And there were some of us who did demand or expect a greater capability than the Seville’s suspension afforded. And bring specially modified suspensions into the discussion is utterly irrelevant. Any car can be modified to be successful on the track, and undoubtedly, the Seville, being based on the Camaro/Nova’s suspension, had a head start in that. I’m sure the Mercedes’ suspension could jave been softened a bit to make it ride as smooth as a Seville on a boulevard too.
Got a chuckle out of the Acura TL reference. Isn’t that “just” an Accord with a different engine, different styling and much higher price? Sound familiar?
The last one I drove had a TON of torque steer from its FWD layout and 270HP V6. I’m sure Paul would tell you real luxury cars don’t have torque steer because they are all RWD.
I’m being facetious here. The 04-08 TL was a very nice car and the FWD didn’t matter one bit to most of the folks who bought it, because most people don’t drive like they are on a racetrack. It handily outsold its competitors and made boat loads of money for Honda.
Then they made the next gen too big and ugly and it bombed. Now there’s a deadly sin!
Acura is a brand that doesnt exist its simply a rebadged Honda they drive ok for a Jappa but thats all, not really an apex clipping back road rocket.
My ex traded in our 1980 Porsche 928 for one of these sleds, served her right.
To underline Paul Niedermeyer’s original point a bit, I was very impressed with the look of the Seville in the late 70’s, but was not in the financial position to even think about visiting a Caddy dealer’s premises at that time. However, one day, as I passed our local Chevy dealership, I saw a car that looked like it was targeted specifically at imitating the M-B status cars of that era: silver gray metallic paint, gorgeous wine-colored interior in a rich fabric with (fake) leather trim, 350 V8, along with every option that Chevy had ever thought of putting in a car, and… it was a Nova! It looked very much like the “Elegante” Caddy model, mentioned by Michael above. It was also a low-mileage “demonstrator” that the owner’s wife had used very sparingly for a year. I closed the deal within a couple of hours on a great hardly-broken-in car, complete with new car warrantee, at a price in the low $3K range that made it hard to fathom what extra value an additional $11K would have been been garnered by visiting a Caddy dealership. That Nova gave me great pleasure for several years. The handling and power lent itself to the “stab and steer” style of motoring technique, which was relatively un-demanding while being a lot of fun! It was just as rewarding to drive as were my subsequent two vehicle acquisitions, M-B 280SL and M-B 450SLC.
I’m living in Norway, but I’ll have a 67 Riviera and a 77 Coupe Deville as a daily driver. My family though has a 1976 Mercedes S280 who only has traveled around 50.000 km or 30.000 miles. The car looks like new and has been in the family since it was bought new in 1976.
But, you american think that MB from the 70s are so great? Really? Your american cars was a lot better in fact. The MB was very well manufactured and a solid car, but i lacks almost every feature an american car had. My 67 Riviera rides better, has more equipment, its faster, rides alot quieter at highway speeds, and has a much better automatic transmission than the Mercedes. The Riviera odometer reads 172.000 miles. It don’t really use so much more gas than the Mercedes straight six either.
The 77 Coupe deville has 244.000 miles on its odometer and rides just fine. It’s better to drive than the Mercedes, it’s faster, the TH400 is a lot better than the harsh shifting MB’s automatic, it has a lot more equipment, and it’s a lot more comfortable.
The MB is better in braking and handling though, but not very much, and the Riviera has almost as good handling as the MB. The Cadillac is to soft.
American cars was very cheap in the US in 60s and 70s, So people didn’t care about maintenance, MB was an expensive car so people would have to maintenance it.
In Norway we’ve a different story. American cars are extremely costly because of the Norwegian taxes on horespower, cubic inches and weights. So in Norway you’ll still find Caprices from the 70s in great condition, and remember, Caprices are not Cadillacs…
If the car is over 30 years old we can import it without taxes, so in the last 20 years Norwegians have importet a lot of old Cadillacs and Lincolns!
If you take care of a car like the american cars from 60s and 70s it will last forever.
You are right Bill; Americans criticize too much American cars, As you consider Quality/Price ratio , no other car manufacturers in the world could compete with US car makers, I am talking about the 1946-1990 period.
they are not perfect cars, but overall you get more car on your money , there have been some exceptionally under-engineered cars like Vega that should be put aside, those are exceptions.
I hand you 4000$ in 1970, you could buy a fully optioned Nova V8 or a bare bone Peugeot 404, Opel Rekord, or BMW1600 with no options at all,
US manufacturer put powerful quality cars at the reach of middle class, that was not the case in Europe.
I was puzzled when I saw more than a few Sevilles in Switzerland while on a student tour of Europe, ca. ’78. Was it exclusivity + exchange rates?
It always amazes me how the grass is always greener on the other side with many Americans.
I agree with all the negative comments on a first generation Seville. I still love them. Always have and always will. There’s just something about that styling that moves me.
I just wish the author, Mr. Niedermeyer, had not used the worst case photos to make his point. The most beautifully crafted and engineered automobile in the world, if treated like the owner of that green seville, would look just as awful.
Who knows why I love this seville so much? Perhaps it has something to do with lost virginity in the back seat.
We all can’t afford the true classics but it is essential that someone maintains the minor classics. I constantly get comments and attention when I drive mine, all positive.
thanks
So, the Seville is a tarted-up Nova? *snicker* That’s about as far-fetched as someone saying that… that, a Rolls Royce is, I don’t know, a Volkswagen… Oh, wait!
I agree with Mr. Buehler on the choice of photos. There are better examples of the ’79 Seville, like Mr. Buehler’s and my own…
You’re close: If you had said a RR is a tarted up BMW, you would have been right, in the case of the RR Ghost, which is a “tarted up” BMW 7 Series.
I’m sorry the truth is painful, but the well-known reality is that the Seville started out as a Nova, and received a number of changes that turned it into the Seville. Nothing wrong with that in principle, except maybe for the very aggressive pricing, but I wouldn’t feel ashamed about it. Nice Seville, BTW.
Thank you, don’t be surprised if a few Rollers out there built between 1998-2003 can trace their DNA back to VW
My first car hand-me-down 1979 Cadillac Seville that I got in 1985. That car was a chick magnet and attracted allot of positive attention. I don’t agree that re-badging is always a bad thing. In fact, it’s alive and well today. The Porsche Cayenne is really a upscale VW Touareg, the Infinity G series’ DNA comes from the Nissian 370Z and the Bentley Continental is really an Audi/Volkswagen Phaeton. Re-badging in itself not a bad thing. It depends how much is added to differentiate the various models that is key.
Since too much focus and debates were an issue which makes the Seville related to the Nova or different and going nowhere at all, how about trying something different. How about comparing the Downsized 1977 RWD B & C Bodies with the 1977 RWD A-Bodies and the Downsized 1978 RWD A (becoming RWD G-Bodies in 1982) Bodies vs. the 1975-79 RWD X Bodies much like the 1976-78 Chevrolet Nova vs. the 1981 Chevrolet Malibu shown here for future CC Stories and you can even use the attached photo here for future articles. I have selected the redesigned 1981 Chevrolet Malibu 4 Door Sedan on top of the 1976-78 Chevrolet Nova 4 Door Sedan because the “mini” Seville look of the 1981 Malibu 4 Door Sedan was much more similar to the Nova 4 Door Sedan in outward appearance at least compared to the 1978-80 Malibu 4 Door Sedan. Lastly the 1979 Cadillac Seville shown at this story photo does not really do any justice regarding this car in which the appearance had already been disheveled. Even the Nova shown here looked 1000% better than the photo used for that Seville.
Another photo here for future CC Article: A 1979 Buick Skylark 4 Door Sedan vs. A 1980 Buick Century 4 Door Sedan.
Last but not least, a 1978 Oldsmobile Omega 4 Door Sedan vs. a 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass Salon 4 Door Sedan.
One more, a 1983 Pontiac Bonneville 4 Door Sedan vs. a 1979 Pontiac Phoenix 4 Door Sedan.
Hi,
would you firstly excuse my bad english, 1 am french (frog eater) and I own a 1978 Seville in showroom condition.I’ll try to put some pics.
I strongly disagree about bad comments about this car, especially vs the MB which is not a challenger.
It’s true than the handling and rear axle are much efficient on MB butspirit is not the same, buyers are different too and the same for roads !
You don’t have narrow roads and free of limits freeway so why would you spent that difference of money for something you’ll never use ?
But in contrary, the Cadillac spirit is obviously present in the Seville.
I mean from 75 to 79…..
It’s a nonsense battle between two different continent, two different spirit, two different prices.
I own a lot of cars and the Seville has something special.
American standard in european size, elegant, reliable and different of other contemporary products.
What else ?
Serge’, your Seville is exactly the same color as the on that I inherited from my mother when I was in high school in the middle 1980’s. It got me lots of attention from the girls.
1978 Cadillac Seville
Inside
Nardi steering wheel is the only no original part
78000 actual miles and frame off meticulous restoration.
License plate US style with french numbers with original us stickers
1 agree 100% with Mead comments, 70’s Mercedes and Bmw were pretty much expensive and they aren’t so reliable you think. My Seville has been restored from the frame because I wanted it like new, but it was in good condition the vinyl roof material was just in perfect shape and no perforating rust anywhere. Try to restore a MB, I did it and my wallet still suffers of the operation!
About pics posted, don’t hesitate to focus, you’ll appeciate and maybe comment the restoration accuracy. And it was almost easy and not so costly, I bought all parts in USA and I founded almost everithing in NOS.
Parts are common with several GM products except EFI but it works perfectly. The car looks really like it was 6 month old and it’s really amazing, especially here in France.
Another thing, nobody would even pay attention here about a MB 70’s sedan but the Cady is a real eyes catcher !
I love it and won’t trade even for several MB !
And if I want to drive fast on narrow secondary roads, I have others european cars.
You drive an MB but you cruise in a Cadillac !
GM’s grave sin was not building the Seville on the Nova X chassis; it was an excellent platform. Strong, almost indestructable, & powered by bulletproof drivetrains. No, the grievous sin was in 1980 when the X chassis went into the history books, replaced by the dreadful N chassis that was the basis for such wobbly garbage as the Citation, the Phoenix, Skylark & Omega. Try finding one of these turds still in use today; you can’t. But, there are plenty of Novas & Sevilles still plying the highways, some even as daily drivers.
Just realized glaring error in my above post. I inadvertently mixed up the x and n chassis of GM. The x chassis was the platform the dreadful-turd Citation was built upon; the n chassis was the good platform the Nova & such were built upon. Please forgive this mix-up!
The Gen 4 Seville inspired by Mercedes? A good laugh on that one. Put them together and really compare them. The Mercedes is like a tool box in comparison.
The Deville to follow is a little different, Mercedes had a 1994 Deville in their studios to evaluate the design and figure out how Cadillac contented and identified different models. Something else rubbed off however, look at the following Mercedes and notice the character of the body side and belt line.
They leaned a lot from that Cadillac.
Clearly this one is quite controversial, but FWIW I can’t get behind the DS nomination for this one.
I love the 1st Gen Seville, and as a 10 year old car nut I can distinctly recall how hotly anticipated and nearly universally well received this car was. Having ridden in several of them back in the late 70’s and early 80’s, I never got the impression that the car was any less a Cadillac than the big ones. As a matter of fact the Seville had a solid, well screwed together feel to it that the big Cadillacs of that time lacked, even after the ’77 downsizing. It may not have competed with the Mercedes technologically, but in the marketplace of the time it was clearly viewed as a more traditional American alternative to one, and it appealed to much of the same buyer demographic. It’s just an opinion, but I think this was a very well executed model. It was a game changer, and it paved the way for the successful downsizing of the later 70’s as well as setting a styling trend that lasted for at least a decade after it went out of production. Far from sinful in my book.
I haven’t seen a Seville on the road in years! I remember when these came out, they looked okay, but no one I knew could afford them, not at $14,000. I haven’t even ridden in one.
I’m still driving my Seville since 1994. I have always loved the ride and the handling. I call it my 4 door Trans Am. A triple black classy Caddy.
Here it is.
In my opinion, this still is one of the best looking Cars GM made.
Perhaps so, but also one of the worst values for money ever. True, this was nothing really new for US carmakers, who had perfected the game of selling a little more car for a lot more money. They still do it with luxury SUVs today, because while much else has changed since then, human vanity hasn’t.
“One rather embarrassing study of Seville buyers discovered that they were popular with senior citizens who wanted a Cadillac in a smaller, more maneuverable package.“ — Wikipedia
So if a person of a specific demographic likes a particular car…. That’s automatically wrong? Ok, The highly vaunted “muscle cars” are desired by High School drop outs who drool and make “vrooom,vrooom” noises with their mouths – Jimipedia.
Wrong, no: in fact I strongly believe that folks have a right to make foolish choices, so long as they harm no one else & suffer any consequences. But neither would I recommend it if anyone asked me.
Pete z.
Could it be, you are prejudice because your father owned one of them!
i dont understand why this car is being attacked like it is on this article. this was the right car for the right time. it was and still is one of the most beautifull cars ever produced. And people looking at this car were not interested in what mb/bmw had to offer at the time. just tired of people putting down big american cars because they have love for foreign cars. our cars were among the most stylish smooth riding cars on the planet. and caddillac is what people aspired to in those days!!!
I have no idea what Cadillac thought the Seville was relative to the Mercedes line. I do know that the Cimarron was supposed to compare with the BMW 3-series.
I think that the Seville probably gave Cadillac owners an alternative to look at before buying a smaller European car (Mercedes E-class or ???).
I do see that the Seville goes downhill from the first generation to the awkward styling of the second generation, and then the overly downsized third generation with too much of a Pontiac Grand Am style. Then Cadillac tries to make the FWD Seville into a sport sedan with little success.
The Opel Diplomat was not a very successful line.
The Seville is an atypical DS in that it was an attractive car with no major engineering/mechanical flaws that sold well in its market segment. So why does it get a DS? It goes back to that same GM malady that affects all DS: missed opportunity. It was one of the first really badly fumbled, successful new GM cars in that the successor, instead of gaining serious Euro-style features like an IRS and/or fuel injection, got that funky bustle-back trunk.
But, worse, as many others have pointed out, it seemed to pave the way for cars like the Cimarron. GM viewed the Seville not as an opportunity to give the car even more European sporting touches, but to cynically exploit the market by thinking that if they added a leather interior and a few Cadillac emblems to a Cavalier, they could get away with charging nearly three times the price for it.
So, the Seville is a unique DS in that it’s ‘badness’ has nothing to do with the car itself, but the attitude GM seems to have gotten from its success for future products.
The Lincoln Versailles was really what paved the way for the Cimmaron, the Seville at it took some substantial investment to hide the Nova underneath, every bit as much(or more) as it did to make a B body Impala a C body DeVille. Lincoln’s approach literally dressed up a Granada, sheetmetal and all, just as GM later would do for the Cimmaron. The Lincoln never sold well compared to the Seville but it cost about as much to buy and no doubt it’s meager development cost made it at the very least profitable. I’m sure GM took note of that
As for the comment that the nova is looking like a bmw,,,,,,,,,,i remind you that bmw as well as many others got their styling from both generations of the chevy corvair.
Many European cars designs were inspired by the Corvair. And the “kink”, ”crook” or whatever its called of the rear window of the Nova, It’s lineage long predates BMW’s usage. GM’s own “A” body fastbacks featured it in the early 1950s!
Photograph #8 is just a (slightly)larger repost
of photo #7 – the one with G-Bonnie on top and
1G Seville on bottom. Just FYI! 🙂
I don’t think the first-gen Seville is a deadly sin, and certainly not compared with the bustleback abomination that was the second-gen. It was a reasoned and well-executed design appropriate for its time and a huge gamble for GM. Remember, they had tried smaller luxury Caddys (short-deck versions in the early ’60s) that flopped big time, so there was no guarantee a dozen years later that this would work. It’s not the Seville’s fault that the sheer styling and upright backlight was copied ad naseum throughout the GM lineup.
GM had the chance to follow up a successful design in 1980 with a true world class compact luxury car, and they botched it big time. Now THAT’S a deadly sin.
“GM had the chance to follow up a successful design in 1980 with a true world class compact luxury car, and they botched it big time. Now THAT’S a deadly sin.”
^This. In fact, I might recommend that Paul change this DS to the 2nd generation Seville. I doubt there’d be but a fraction of the dissent from the B&B that was generated towards the selection of the first generation car and all of the DS rationale would still apply.
The bottom line is that it’s hard to call, what is by most accounts, a pretty decent car a Deadly Sin, even if it came from GM and there were definite Deadly Sin-worthy actions afterwards that could be indirectly related to it.
The “How Stuff Works” Seville feature is a good read giving an inside look at GM bureaucracy and the hurdles designers and engineers had to go through to put out a smaller Cadillac in under two years.
I think the end result is commendable, the Seville is a real looker now as it was back then and sales took off so clearly GM got this car right. Were there shortcomings? Of course, what seventies automobile didn’t have issues. I wouldn’t call the first gen a deadly sin however.
I’ve read the entire thread going back over 4 years, I still don’t think most people are getting why this is a GM DS. Has nothing to do with how the Seville was received by the market at the time.
The Seville was a hit for Cadillac, no doubt. It was not only a good, but a great first iteration. Gen 1 total sales of about 215K, let’s say average of $13K sales price, looking at about $2.8B over 5 years. The question is what did GM do with that vs. say Merc?
Mercedes invested in engineering, while GM bet on styling. As good as the original Seville was, no one can honestly say that GM upped their engineering game on this model vs. what Mercedes did. What was the result? Mercedes defined what the luxury sedan was for the 80’s and onward, to this day. GM continued on a down-slide, eventually ending in BK and taxpayer bailout.
It’s not just the obvious GM failures (looking at you, Vega), but just as much the way that GM handled successes. The Seville is a symptom not a cause, of the long decline and eventual failure of GM.
GM died a death of 1000 cuts, virtually all of their own making.
I have commented elsewhere that by the early 1960’s that Mercedes was building safety cage bodies while the Big Three were not.
pebird and Johnster, you GET IT!!!!!
And thanks, Johnster, (see below) for posting the link to Aaron Severson’s must-read Seville history over on Ate Up With Motor.
Aaron outlines how GM learned all the WRONG lessons BECAUSE the 1st-gen Seville WAS a quite-competent upgrade of the X-body that sold well. He explains how the 1st-gen Seville led to the Cimarron. Which dovetails perfectly back to Paul’s “On The Purpose And Nature Of GM’s Deadly Sins”, linked at the end of the original article.
The 1980 Seville was packed with technical sophistication.
Love re-reading this again. Anyhow, here’s a few pics of my ’79 and yeah… these cars weren’t cheap (like 3x avg car price) mine isn’t even loaded and it was $18,500 I do still love this car, alot. based on reactions every time it hits the streets, people of all ages would still agree.
Monroney sticker
One thing of interest I forgot to mention regarding GM and the window stickers. Blow up/magnify the sticker above and you can read the detailed explanation/disclaimer about Cadillac using the Oldsmobile 350 block & heads for the Seville. Start phase of the era of engine sharing, lawsuits and disclaimers when people were so used to each Division designing & building their own motors.
For the ’76 MY Cadillac only had the 472 & 500, then for ’77, they now had the rock solid , but too large 425 so they chose Olds for the smaller 350 for Gen1 Seville run which sold from Spring of 1975, as MY 1976, thru fall of 1979.
I’m thrilled with the choice of Oldsmobile V8 because its been such a great motor and so easy to work on too. After fully restoring the Bosch/Bendix system MPFI system myself, given the 350, 400TH trans and solid GM under-pinnings, I almost never have a worry with mechanical reliability. I use it every summer as a DD on clear weather days.
interior
rear
About the only thing you don’t have is a sunroof. The Seville did come with a lot standard and limited options, which is why its price tag was high.
Bob Templin Cadillac’s chief engineer during the development of the Seville said that initially marketing thought that as smaller Cadillac had to be priced cheaper then a DeVille if it were to sell. He stated:
“Well, by the time we put in all the engineering effort, even though we got the Nova body shell, but after we reskinned it and spent all that money on the exterior tools and stuff, the numbers were adding up. It was not going to be an inexpensive car. We said, ‘Okay, let’s throw the book at this car, put on every goody we can think of … let’s doll it up and make an absolute slick thing out of it, and price it above the DeVille.’ So that’s where we ended up.”
true she’s well equipped, but you have that moonroof was about $800, then in ’78/’79, there was also the Elegante’ package that added approx another $2500. Along with those, the optional digital readout/trip computer adds another G, so you’re in the low $20K range fully equipped. yowza
at a local show setup
Did they ZIG or ZAG ?
One of the worst auto commericials ever purpatrated on car buyers !
Can’t remember the model name, but I do recall it was imported from Germany.
I have not seen one in several years.
They might become a collectors item 50 years from now ?
“Catera”, and it will unlikely be a collectible. In fact I believe that the “Cimmaron” is more likely to be “collectible” as it’s a more famous “fail”, Think Edsel.
While this 1st Gen Seville was a good seller, I do agree it wasn’t the hit that it may have initially seemed by the sales numbers. That said, I think a big problem with Cadillac of this era was that it had already moved down market to catch more sales. This hurt it’s prestige in the eyes of the really affluent buyers. By the time the Seville was released in April 1975, how many of the Mercedes buyers would have considered it even if it were more technically advanced and a closer competitor? Having that three pointed star on the hood really represented something quite a bit different than the wreath and crest and that was established well before the Seville was released.
I think we also must take into consideration that Cadillac and GM was pretty conservative at this time. For them to do the small Cadillac was a risk and it was unknown how it would survive in the market. I do think they did a pretty good job on the car they did produce, and it did have more technical innovations, better handling, better fuel economy and far more standard luxuries than the other traditional Cadillac’s. Where I see the major problem occurring was in the second generation car. General Motors and Cadillac had the resources to see that while the first car was a success it wasn’t stealing import buyers nor winning over a much younger demographic. They had proof of concept that a small Cadillac would be accepted in the market and they had the resources to see who was buying them, but they failed to use this to build a better car. They needed to make the second generation car much closer to the German competition, as at this point it was much less of a risk. Instead, the 1980 Seville was one of the Cadillac’s biggest misses. The car was released with the neoclassic styling that was just so far out of step with the German cars that even a blind person could see that and it certainly made no major improvements in driving dynamics.
As time has shown, it took Cadillac a LONG time to change their reputation from building puffy land yachts to modern luxury performance cars, but I believe it would have occurred much quicker if the Gen 2 car would have continued to follow the German formula.
When I look at the Opel Diplomat that Cadillac considered using as a small Cadillac, I see a strong family resemblance to the 1966-1967 Chevy II.
I think that Aaron Severson best summed up the original Cadillac Seville on his “Ate Up With Motor” website story on the Seville:
“Considering its unpromising foundation, the original 1976–1979 Cadillac Seville turned out much better than it had any right to considering the unpromising foundation, hasty development schedule, and the deep-seated corporate ambivalence toward the whole project.”
You can read his excellent history of the original Seville and its bustle-back successor at the following link:
http://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/cadillac-seville/
Aaron’s story is an excellent follow-up to Paul’s.
I don’t think it was mentioned amongst the many comments on this site, but there were two competing designs for the Seville before the final design was decided. One was by Stan Parker and one was by Wayne Kady. Kady’s design had a semi-fast back almost bustle back look, similar to the 1980 Seville. Parker’s design initially had a sloping rear roof line like Nova, but the formal back light came about because of Bill Mitchell. Apparently when Bill Mitchell saw one of Parker’s cars in clay after a trip from England he stated:
“Goddamit, Parker, make that backlight damn near vertical. Make it look like a Rolls-Royce!’ I said to myself, ‘Well, maybe the guy’s gone bananas,’ but we tried it, and it worked.”
Here is a early concept drawn proposal for the Opel based car. Once they decided to use the X-body the design theme continued. It was determined that these early concepts looked too Chevrolet like.
Here is the Kady Concept. Parker’s design with the formal backlight was ultimately chosen after a competition at a California consumer clinic.
If one wants a great read the history of the Seville, get a copy of Collectible Automobile June 2000 which includes numerous interviews with key members of the car’s development.
hey, thanks much for the info. i just grabbed a copy of the mag on ebay. can’t wait to read it.
No problem. It’s is the best article I have read on the development of the Seville. Your car is very nice too BTW.
For those interested in this article, I think the above-referenced HowStuffWorks article is actually substantially the same thing.
HowStuffWorks and Consumer Guide have been under the same corporate umbrella since the mid-oughts, and HowStuffWorks repackaged a lot of Collectible Automobile and other “Auto Editors of Consumer Guide” material for the web between 2007 and 2009. Some of the original photos are omitted (as are the bylines, which would vex me as an author), and the layout is somewhat different, but the text is usually about the same.
Was this a concept for the 1976 Seville or
for the 1979 bustleback?
That’s for the 76 car.
The ’80 Seville was derived from a bustleback proposal for the 79 Eldorado.
Wow. Very progressive design for
mid-70s American roads.
That concept I posted was a proposal for the 1976 Seville, by Wayne Kady. He had several bustle back designs that dated until the 1960’s around the time of the ’67 Eldorado. It wasn’t until the 1980 Seville one actually made it into production. Hubba is correct that it was initially proposed that the ’79 Eldorado be a bustle back but Cadillac’s general manager refused the idea. So the idea was then suggested for the Seville. Kady stated that it was Bill Mitchell selling the idea to upper management that got the proposal through.
I always liked this generation of GM “compacts” the best of all their lines in the 70’s. They’re about the size of a 1950’s Ford or Chevrolet, in the 3,500 lbs. range, rear drive with a 350 available and not the ponderous boats that the full-size and intermediates were–intermediates were the size of full-size 60’s cars. While the Cadillac Sevlle is built on the same chassis, it’s not the almost complete look-alike that the Monarch and Versailles were–practically a rebadged version of the former and indistinguishable. I know you don’t like it, but I feel like you could have found an example that wasn’t trashed out, which doesn’t help its perception any.
The Versailles didn’t even try to hide the fact that it was a Granada with a tire hump grafted on to the rear and a Lincoln grille affixed to the front. It even used the same carbureted 302 as the cheaper Ford. That car was more of a deadly sin than the first gen Seville ever thought of being.
What a fascinating thread! I don’t think that anyone really hates the gen 1 Seville. It was as American as could be, (absurdly so) and the right Cadillac for the era. It could have been better for sure and even world class, if they would have fitted it with the 500 ci. engine and the WS/6 suspension from the Trans Am. Now that would have been “The Standard of the World”.
That would have been too much to ask. It could have at least had the 403, but it wasn’t available until 1977. It was an era of being short changed on everything.
The great, practical advantage of the rear window(s) becoming almost vertical… Is greatly reducing sun damage to the interior (particularly the top of the rear seat upholstery), to say little of reducing car interior temperatures. Engineering-wise, the near-vertical rear window allows shorter overall car length, yet still providing sufficient, cubic-feet of room within the trunk.. and passenger rear compartment area (though I prefer a bit more leg room via a slightly-longer wheelbase—-like Ford did with 80s Town Cars versus Crown Vic’s & Gr Mrqs)
“Under-achieving”??? I dare say that as boomers were aging, reliability became increasingly important. Hello, Cad hurt themselves much more via their engine diaster, such as the 4100, 8-6-4, the Diesels… and the “doggy” Olds V-8s….. and displacements that were too small… weak on torque…. premature Olds 307 engine failures due to being over-worked for the job at hand…….. Self-inflicted, suicidal-to-Cadillac’s historical, earned reputation for high-quality engines that were second-to-none… contributed greatly to their massive fall (maybe more than anything else) from which Cadillac has never recovered, and probably never will.. especially from a historical perspective. The only, temporary help came in the 1990s, via using the proven SBC in the flagship RWD Brougham. Such, by then, was “too little, too late”, IMO. Yes, GM “got fat and lazy” many decades ago.. by failing to adequately PLAN for it’s long-term future. Thus, the Japs “ate their lunch”.
Can’t believe that the basic profile for the ’81 Buick Century I drove in college was over fifteen years old by the time I was driving one, used. Dated back to ’74.
Bad to the bone.
Had Cadillac produced an Opel Diplomat based Seville, when and what would they have likely replaced it with?
Could the 1978 Opel Senator or Holden Commodore have served as a suitable replacement for a Diplomat-based Cadillac Seville replacement?
Nice idea, but I couldn’t see that working without a total reskin. I think it was too radical.
The old Diplomat looked sort of Cadillacish, true, but the airy Senator/Commodore with their ultra-low beltlines and all that glass would have sent typical late-seventies (year, not age) Cadillac buyers into cardiac arrest. No privacy! No dignity! No…
Yet fifty years earlier Cadillac had been at the forefront of automotive style. Somehow they had become ossified. That is a deadly sin.
Was indeed envisioning a less radical reskin for a Senator/Commodore based Seville successor to replace a Diplomat Seville, like on the following stretched VX prototype that would in turn be succeeded by Senator/Commodore replacements that carry over the 1992 and 1997 Seville styling.
Thinking about it Cadillac could have easily fielded a trio of models on the same platform as recall the 1974-1980 Torana being in essence a short-wheelbase V-based model of almost similar size as an Ascona B (length aside due to the V8s), which could have also carried over the styling of the prototype above with an Cimarron-like engine range and be followed by a Zeta/Sigma type trio (including a BLS styled Torana TT36).
I’m glad I didn’t read this article when it was originally written (evil grin). I’m going to go out on a limb and say the ’75 Seville, the ’77 DeVille/Fleetwood, and the ’79 Eldorado were the last wise marketing moves Cadillac made for almost two decades.
Where Cadillac went horribly wrong had nothing to do with these cars. Cadillac owners were a pretty broad-minded group, and put up with a lot. What they wouldn’t tolerate was an unreliable car, or an underpowered car. In 1981, Cadillac introduced an unreliable 8-6-4 across the board. In ’82, they followed up with the 4.1, which was both unreliable and underpowered.
Meanwhile, over at Buick City, the ’85 Park Avenue was a good hit, and the ’91 was a home run. I’d like to know how many old Cadillac buyers wound up in those cars by virtue of both styling and solid mechanicals. GM, of course, could never leave well enough alone. The restyled Park Avenue looked like the prior model that had spent far too much time in a donut shop. Then came the Lucerne- hy build pretty cars, when anonymous would do?
Yep… GM committed more errors than I can count, but the Seville wasn’t one of them. BTW- a metal roof was available from ’77 on, and was a fairly popular option.
This Seville could only be a four-door replica for the 1963 Hawk GT (Gran Turismo), hidden behind the badge and mask of GM. And no thing else.
This is how it depicted in my thought.
The Cadillac Seville was not a deadly sin. You american tend to way to harsh at your own car industry. in the 70s, almost any american car was a better car than the usual cars we drove in Europe at the time.
In my family we have a 1976 Mercedes 280S, owned it since new, about 30.000 miles.The car looks great, handle ok, and the fit and finish is great.
But, the car is noisy, harsh riding, the automatic change gear quite harsh and the I6 engine sounds rather noisy at idle. Even the automatic choke is problematic on the MB.
The Cadillac Seville can not match the fit and finish of the Mercedes. But, the Seville was quiet, smooth riding, well equipped with a good AC/Heating system. Everything the Mercedes is not.
I have a 1967 Buick. In almost every way, that is a better car than the MB.
Why did the american yuppies wanted a Mercedes? The same reason we wanted an american Chevrolet Caprice over here: it was exotic, rare, something special.
I love these comparison articles where you can see similar styling or use of the same basic body, as we see above in the Nova and in the Pontiac comparisons. Keep ’em coming.
While ready to acknowledge GM once did build some great cars, I too am ready to bash the General for their sins. I owned Chebbies in the 80s and 90s and the reliability that I thought I was getting was quite absent.
Very much enjoying these pieces.
I find the attacks on Paul utterly disgusting
If you don’t like what he has to say move on
Those of us who enjoy his writings and thoughts will not miss you
Paul certainly made me think of the fist gen Seville in a different way. I had regular rides in one, it belonged to the boyfriend of one of the car pool moms that took me to junior high.
It was brand new, and the boyfriend and mom were a bit exotic for our group, she was a divorcee with a taste for the finer things in life. The Seville was triple yellow, quite a contrast to the dark green ’71 Plymouth Satellite wagon that another car pool mom drove.
When it came to displays of middle class affluence, I was more attuned to my friend’s father, an engineer, that drove a very conservative Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight.
The Seville was cramped, and in hindsight, I’m surprised that he let 5 good size teen boys pile in it. I guess there still was a market for 6 passenger sedans.
I do think the criticisms of the Seville sharing platforms, parts, and using outside vendors run to excess – it was nothing Cadillac hadn’t been doing for decades already, and nothing many other luxury makers haven’t also done.
The high price was a bit arrogant, but it’s worthwhile to note that the Seville had several standard items that were optional on the bigger Cadillacs – tilt wheel, deluxe trunk with pull-down, four wheel disc brakes among them. Still, I believe that comparably equipped, the Seville was disproportionately high priced. America was ready for a smaller Cadillac, and pitching it more as an entry level car might have tweaked Mercedes’ nose a bit. That high price on a middle size car carried through to the next generation, and became just another confusing part of the jillion models GM was pumping out in the ’80s.
Cadillac had lost much of what made a Cadillac special with all of its ’70s era cars. It could have made a recovery with the next generation of cars, but instead GM’s style, marketing, drive trains and reliability all became sub par, leading to issues nobody in 1976 ever thought the General would face.