(first posted 3/19/2012 as a rebuttal to my Deadly Sin on the same car)
I’ll say this upfront so you’ll better understand my position: This is my favorite car of all time.
Some crazed German Austrian automotive writer (who is bound to pop up sooner or later) told me that he believes the 1980-85 Cadillac Seville is one of GM’s Deadly Sins. After I regained consciousness, I informed him he was crazy and that the Seville is quite righteous. So, to make a long story very slightly shorter, we have agreed to make our respective cases in dueling Curbside Classic fashion, and this is my assault.
En garde, sir:
My competitor was kind enough to spot me the ability to use any pictures I liked, while he will use ones of some crusty old Seville he found in Eugene with moss and possibly some hippie crazy daisies stuck to it. While I hardly believe the Seville will need the extra help provided by photos of pristine examples, I also believe in using all available resources. Put differently, I really want this car to win you over, and I really want to win.
Mechanically, the Seville was let down for most of its run primarily by a slate of engines consisting almost entirely of genuinely awful, underdeveloped designs. Only the 368 cubic inch engine for 1980 was worth having at all, at least, that is, prior to being ruined the following year with a grafted-on variable displacement technology Cadillac named the V8-6-4. The V8-6-4 was too frequently a V-5-8-3-G-D-@-*-!-F-F-F and was not known for the smoothness or reliability expected of a Cadillac engine. It was so godawful, in fact, that it was dropped after only a single year! (How often does that happen??)
Unfortunately, the other engine choices after 1980 were a now-rareish 4.1 liter Buick V6(!), the head-bolt-stretching Oldsmobile 350 Diesel, or Cadillac’s own dreaded HT4100 baby V8. The less said about these last two boat anchors, the better. The gasoline Olds 350 was available for the first year or two only, and only in California, sadly.
As bad as these engines were, they were in no way unique to the Seville, and that’s why I believe that Deadly Sin status should in no way be bestowed upon the Seville due to them. Every single Cadillac of this era (besides the craptastic Cimarron, which had an entirely different burden to bear) shared this line of engines, so if the Seville is a Deadly Sin because of rotten engines, so are all the other Caddies of this period. (On second thought, I may be tempting fate a bit too vigorously and the jaded German just might call every single Cadillac made in the first half of the 1980s a Deadly Sin!)
Badinkadink.
Well, I’ve stalled long enough. If I must address the Seville’s bobbed butt, I’ll just say that it’s an acquired taste, and its charm is greatly influenced by the ride height of the rear suspension, options such as artificial tops, and paint choices.
This white example is as good a way as any to get a feel for the car’s natural lines before any vinyl or cloth tops or two-tone paint changes the feel of the trunk. While this car’s rear suspension is sitting at the correct, factory height, in my opinion this car should be lowered about 1.5″ in the rear. If you’ve ever seen one in my preferred state you know this does strange things to the rear camber, but it’s still worth it.
From this angle, the straight line from the top of the backlight down to the rear bumper feels especially harsh. Still, I think this rear treatment is more effective and cohesive than either the bustleback Continentals or Imperials of similar vintage.
This Eleganté model sports the two-tone paint that I think makes the rear look much better. Note ride height on this one is lower, and it helps, but it still needs to be ever so slightly lower.
As my Lincoln looks on, this pimptastic stretched custom Seville actually has a too low ride height, but too low is better than too high with this car. And with that, I am now realizing I may not be helping my case for the Seville as a classic by belaboring the point that it must have an inoperative load leveling system to look proper.
If you’re not an ass man, the interior of the Seville is a nice place to be. They have ample room without being absurd, and also they have that flat floor. This model is fairly restrained, but many were ordered with rather flamboyant interiors that more severely date the car than this one.
Sevilles also enjoyed (mostly) frameless windows, a favorite feature of mine on any car. (Note the oddball framed rear quarter window.)
Sevilles had plenty of buttons to press without feeling like an early ’90s Pontiac product. Note the very ritzy use of two different kinds of fake wood.
And with that, my fight for the Seville’s place in the CC pecking order is just about finished.
I realize the Seville is a polarizing design. I realize that (because of the engines) it’s a terrible mode of transportation. I even realize it isn’t built to the standard of the Cadillacs of the early 1960s and before. But it was bold, interesting, and even exotic at a time when very few cars were. Praise (Wayne) Kady, (Bill) Mitchell be upon him.
Alternate viewpoint:
CC 1980-1985 Cadillac Seville: GM’s DS #17 – From Halo to Devil’s Pitchfork PN
When these came out, it was the first GM design of my lifetime (which began in 1967) to elicit anything even remotely approximating excitement in me, the first that made me want to stop what I was doing to go back and look when I saw one. I knew at that age that this car wasn’t aimed at my demographic, but I applauded GM for doing something bold and different. Today, if I came upon one of these in good nick and good price, I’d be tempted to buy it. I’m with you, Mr. Tactful.
Bold & different? Where have I seen a rear like that before? Maybe-
http://www.rrab.com/feb08.htm
Well, how about “boldly stolen”?
Bill Mitchell made no secret of his admiration for the razor-edged Hoopers; as Mitchell often said, the car that became the ’63 Riviera was inspired by another Hooper-bodied car.
It was certainly bold for a new car of the late seventies, I have to give it that…
I’m right there with you, Jim. It may not have been for me (I was more intrigued by the Thunderbird Turbo Coupe), but it was something different from the rectangular GM look, and it certainly had more presence than many of its competitors. It seemed to fit in well with the JRs & Sue Ellens in my part of Texas (speaking of context).
Well Donna Culver Krebbs drove one, or maybe not. This was Pam’s dream season lol
Still a lot nicer than seeing Clayton Farlow or was it Carter McKay driving that tiny downsized 1986 Seville. Men of that size needed a larger roomier car.
Interesting tail treatment and at least gm went with a bolder style treatment – but I think this look was a dated one even in 85. I was 16 then and I thought it looked like an old mans car – still do. which may have been planned that way. This was a 50+ mans/gals car. Which is fine. I can appreciate it now where I never did b4.
I have never driven any of them, but I do like the look. In particular the two tone model.
The pimped models are not to hot.
This is probably some sort of ’80s analogue to the boat-tail Riviera, and I want to respect it for that. But I still can’t think of it as a landmark GM design.
A well-off acquaintance in high school (late ’90s) ran one of these, a hand-me-down from her parents. I remember the chin-high dash, the eerie drivetrain howl, and the loose, thumpy ride. Even more well-off classmates drove Mercedes and Lexuses, and I remember those feeling generations ahead of this car.
I, too, really liked these. After all, they showed some actual STYLE! To me, a Cadillac should exude style. Must be the substance that has anything against it. I’m speaking of quality of interior accoutrements and such. I also liked Lincoln’s answer with their own bustle-back sedan, but I think Caddy wins overall, if for nothing else than being less chunky-looking.
Germans – what do they know? Angular Tiger tanks? Wait a minute – the unnamed individual is Austrian! That makes it all better. “Tales From The Vienna Woods” sounds so sweet!
Ha. This MY Seville actually did sell in Austria as a grey import and survivors sometimes make appearances in car shows. But I doubt anyone living in the Vienna Woods area would have gotten one when they were new – this is mostly 4×4 territory (think steep, snow-covered roads) with usual suspects (Audi Quatros, SUVs) dominating… An Escalade would make more sense, but that was years in the future back then.
Lord Have mercy, Vienna Woods means something COMPLETELY different in Cincinnati…it’s a nasty, low-rent apartment complex.
Sevilles, beautiful cars all around. The white one would be my pick. (Not the custom job.) Last year I looked at one for sale in someone’s front lawn. A tan 85 elegante, no vinyl roof, tan leather with 45K. No price and no one from the house coming out. I really didn’t want one at the time and later saw it advertised for $ 3,995 in the paper.
Seemed like that car should have sold for much more. A few days later, I saw the car parked in the driveway of a house about 6 doors down. A beautiful car, it’s been sitting outside since.
“And with that, I am now realizing I may not be helping my case for the Seville as a classic by belaboring the point that it must have an inoperative load leveling system to look proper.”
Comedy gold, Mr. T! And like your namesake, I pity da fool who can’t enjoy an icon of 80s kitsch.
Now I turn to Niedermeyer, the Austrian Rocky. Cue “Eye of the Tiger”!
Well it one me over when I saw the Radio & A/C Unit. Groovy. Still I wouldn’t pay any attention to me as I am also fond of the Edsel and the Leyland P76 🙂
Bravo, you made your point well. I am a mite disappointed, though – the pimped-out version with the sidemounts deserved its own photo spread. 🙂
Your closeup of the climate control and radio panel is what is starting to turn me against this car. I look at the climate control and remember how mine never worked right, and from reading Canucklehead’s comments, I know that I am not alone.
Then I see the radio and remember that it represents GM arrogance/cost cutting in a nutshell: “We have decided that every time you turn the radio on, you want the electric antenna to raise, and that when you turn it off, it will lower again. And if you leave your radio on all the time, the antenna will automatically raise and lower every time you start or turn off the car.” Brilliant. Tens of thousands of unnecessary duty cycles for a part almost impossible to get at to replace. Vintage Cadillac. I never figured out if it was because the engineers didn’t trust the elderly buyers to remember to lower the antenna for the car wash, or if they saved money by eliminating the separate switch.
JP,
That power antenna operation is NOT exclusive to GM; mid-1990s Honda Accords do the exact same thing (I just worked on one last Saturday).
While in college I was a co-op student at Delco Electronics where everything in that center dash section was made. The radio is a 2700 (cubic centimeter) series ETR (Electronically-Tuned Radio) with either a Pioneer or Blaupunkt cassette player in it (Delco did not made their own).
Oh, and if you do decide to ever own one of these cars, good luck trying to find a working spare engine ECM. Cadillac used their own ECMs while all of the other GM divisions shared the same ones (with unique PROMs). Even back in the late 1980s Delco was having problems sourcing enough core Cadillac engine ECMs for remanufacturing purposes – most of these cars went to their graves with the ECM in the crypt.
I had a Honda of that vintage that had the same sort of power antenna. It was particularly annoying because after a while, the mast would accumulate wax, dirt, and grime, so each time it raised or lowered it would make a labored and unhappy noise. I asked my mechanic at one point about replacing it and his response was to just ignore it, saying that it would be expensive to replace and the new one would do the same thing before long. It never actually failed, it was just aggravating.
I had three Nissans in the 80’s/90’s – 300ZX, Altima, Maxima – power antennas worked the same way. Two, on Z and Maxima, failed. Glad power antennas are history. I believe my Dad’s 1978 Lincoln Mark V was the last car we owned that had a separate switch for the power antenna.
Power antennas are history? My God! I must have been living in the world of ignorance! I didn’t know that, or at least, until now.
“This is my favorite car of all time.”
How can a rational, logical person toss abuse upon a subjective opinion as so many blithering idiots do within the vast majority of Web-based message boards?
Thus I shall refrain from abuse-heaping due to one of my rare lucid moments.
I will ponder, though, what a “blither” is.
Sorry..I can’t do it.
It’s not the styling…they had that down and the black/silver one really compliments its styling.
It was the execution…and between their regrettable engine choices and equally awful build quality, it deserves Deadly Sin status.
If I was going to own one…it would have to go to a Foose or Trepanier for a complete re-working…panel gaps adjusted, trim properly aligned…modern electrical and mechanical…make it what it could be.
What it should have been in the first place. Standard of the World.
GM was so arrogant in those days. Instead, they should have taken enough pride in Cadillac’s deep heritage to build a car that measured up and then price it accordingly.
Put the HORRIBLE engines aside for a moment the only Cadillacs that are worthy of the Cadillac name (post 1980, and speaking from a style standpoint) are the bustle back Seville, pre 1986 Eldorado, pre FWD downsizing Coupe De Ville and De Ville, and RWD Brougham/Fleetwood.
Seville pulls off the busle back better than the Imperial and just a hair better than Lincoln. The nearly 400 cubic inch FWD Eldorado and Seville are also the last application of the big block/FWD formula that GM used to create the Toronado and Eldorado in 1967.
Perhaps it is because I was born in 1977, have memories of the downsized Cadillacs and the publics reatction to them, or maybe it is because I spent too much time at old car shows as a child but you couldn’t give me a Cadillac with less than 350 cubic inches, even as a gift.
Half a dozen years ago, a good friend owned an off-lease STS4 that had previously belonged to an NFL star. He let me drive the thing down I-79 in West Virginia at speeds approaching 125 MPH (we had a meeting to attend in Charleston).
Amazing experience. The way it held the road even at those crazy speeds, especially as compared to the DTS (which I also got to hurtle down I-79 at well over 100 MPH) was like night and day.
I’ve also driven a CTS rental and was impressed with its solid feel…but it must have had the base engine as it seemed to always labor, even in casual driving in town.
I’m a fan of the Northstar although I’d be wary of actually owning one as we hold onto vehicles to well over 200K if we can and the Northstar’s issues as they get miles on them are well documented.
Dan, I really think Cadillac’s on their way back. I’d also driven a ’79 DeVille back when new and wasn’t too impressed. It was my boss’s car and it was a step up from his ’77 Grand Marquis, although the Merc had a better audio system as I recall. That era of Caddy did have an imposing presence…more like the great Caddies of the 60’s than the elephantine ’71-’76 models.
The interior on that black/silver one isn’t too bad, except for that dash. If I had to pick a FWD Caddy from the early 80s to drive forever it’d have to be the Eldo though. The BB Seville just dosen’t work for me.
I’ve never driven one but I love the style. Our next door neighbors growing up had an ’80 with the diesel. The wife would get a new Cadillac every five or six years, and last I saw them she had a CTS.
I remember her husband would be out tinkering with that diesel day and night to get it run right, but I was a kid and thought that tinkering was a great past time! (still do actually) He was the one that taught me about the simplicity of fuel-spark-air and let me help myself to his tools and garage for years.
WHY do I not have more replies??
EVERYONE who replies to this CC that the Seville is NOT a Deadly Sin will get a free gourmet dinner at Paul’s house, and they can spend the night if they want and use his pickup truck to go to the store and they can write fun stories on Curbside Classic about their mom’s old car and Paul will help them move and….vote vote vote !!!!!
Even better, he can boot out all his tenants and let us all move in and we’ll have a Curbside Commune. Eugene gives tax breaks to Communists. WIN!
> Eugene gives tax breaks to Communists.
WHAT?
PS: I’m still waiting for my dinner invitation.
I am looking at a 1983 Seville–cheap–just because I like it. Wire wheels, moonroof (did not know they made them in those days) well maintained and low mileage.
Don’t know what questions to ask–engine a problem?? Look for rust.
My husband always had caddies–including a Seville and a Northstar. Gave the Northstar away and sold the Seville. Actually got as much as 33 mph in overdrive with the Northstar.
Should I buy the 83 Seville just for fun? I drive a Lexus SUV hybrid, a Ford Edge Ranger truck and a Chevy S-10. Gave my Prius to a nephew.
If you can have it for fun, of course. The 4100V8 is a gutless, unreliable wonder though. I’d much rather have one of the earlier versions with the larger engine.
Some of that depends on if the previous owner gave it proper service or if the engine was replaced with a GM updated version which is far better I hear from various owners. The mid run 1985 on up motors are best and the Goodwrench factory replacements after 1985 sorted out most of the issues these engines had.
As for being gutless well that was a product of the times more than the fault of the engine. Some Cadillac owners I know have got more power out of these mills by tweaking the timing a few degrees, replacing the restrictive factory catalytic converter, swapped to a better spark plug and a couple of other swaps with surprising results.
I have to say I’m in your camp, Mr. Tactful. I remember these as new cars when I was a kid, and I always noticed them. It depended on whether or not they had all the usual aftermarket garbage tacked onto them. A stock one in navy blue, black or burgundy is very sharp.
One Seville I remember seeing was particularly hideous. It had the fake convertible top, a fake spare set into the trunk lid, and fake luggage straps. I wonder what the owner’s thought process was. “I know, let’s take a really expensive car and put a bunch of cheap, ugly crap on it that makes it look terrible!”
And I would nominate the HT4100 as a Deadly Sin, not the Seville. It may have caused more damage to Cadillac than the Cimarron.
How about one without the luggage straps but with running boards?
Running boards? Oh come on, it’s not a Suburban!
I still think the fake spare is the ugliest accessory for this car, but you really need to see one with the fake spare and luggage straps to get the full sense of awfulness.
I read an article in a Cadillac book that said Bill Mitchell got really ticked off when GM offered simcon tops on the Seville and Eldorado. He called them pig bladders. He believed the cars were perfectly styled and adding all this extra junk was an insult.
Yeah…
Judging by the ridges & waves in the roof is that one actually a convertible?
Nope, they put things under the material to give the appearance of convertible top structure.
And create more failure points too no doubt…
Gawd!
Hi Tom, just ran across this comment, and although I am Mr. Cadillac… I must sadly agree with you on this here: >> “And I would nominate the HT4100 as a Deadly Sin, not the Seville. It may have caused more damage to Cadillac than the Cimarron.”
The HT4100 was not a ‘may have’ situation, it was a definitive, yep, I’m done here now Deadly Sin, in and of itself.
My Mom had so many Cadillacs, and loved driving/owning them. But that Eldo Biarritz with the 4100….well, although to this very day, 30 years on, my Mother will tell you (and I still agree) that it was the most beautiful automobile ever built. It was triple white, with the navy carpeting and dash, WHAT a looker. But, sadly, this car could not even ‘get out of it’s own shadow’ when the pedal was floored on a flat road. Yes, this Eldorado’s true colors were buried deep beneath the striking ‘model looks’… I attached a pic, looks just like her’s except for the red instead of navy.
Mom still tells people… “When I drove that car, I could do NO wrong”
I am telling you, very much unlike today’s cars…everywhere you’d go with that car, people gawked and lusted after it. Seriously, I was there, and they really did. You just could not stop staring at that car, inside or out.
WHY did they not just continue to build that perfect car with the Oldsmobile 350 they started with (and in my ’79 Seville) & continue refining the EFI (which they could have even taken over 100% motor rights after Olds was thru with it then anyway). What a way to ruin one of the most perfect cars in half a century.
My Mom was very GM loyal and was used to decades of GM powertrain integrity, torque, reliability and… sheer power with her several other DeVilles, Ninety Eight Regencys and Eldo’s. I remember when she got her 1973 Eldorado coupe, she named Her> Silver Bullet, and that car was one, trust me, you could smoke those front tires for 1/2 a block, very much unlike that ’83. Although that ’83 Biarritz was incredibly gorgeous… what an under-powered ____.
That HT4100 engine IS the sole reason why the next car was a loaded, talking Nissan Maxima. And, after that, on my advice… a 1989 Lincoln Mark VII 5.0 HO LSC.( It was loved so much that it gave 14yrs of solid service and then, turned over to a new owner still running strong and sporting it’s timeless, classy & sporty good-looks).
Not one Cadillac ever again after that engine debacle (and the dozens of un-satisfactory trips to the Dealer, directly related to that motor) was involved.
The HT4100 was THE straw that broke the Camel’s back.
Another vote for Mr. Tactful. I would take an 80/81 in a heartbeat, but ensure that I cut the red wire on the ’81 to be on the safe side. Every >80 Seville that I’ve been in always had class and decent quality, whereas every ’76-79 rode and felt like a knackered Nova with a good engine. One caveat would be to buy an example with all the electrics working, or have a damned good wiring person handy. >81 Sevilles and Eldo’s driven always felt that I would have to break out the rosary just to get some acceleration, knocked, pinged, etc. Cannot say enough bad things about the 4100, and how nice a 368 runs once the variable displacement tranny wire is cut
I really like the way the three lines flow together at the base of the rear bumper. And I especially like the convex curve that goes from the top of the backlight to the bumper. It’s a beautiful shape.
Having said that, I detest the wheels on these–fake spokes are always a bad thing. I think that if these cars had just a few more inches in the wheelbase, they would look a lot better.
Is it me, or does it look like the rear seat cushion is only four inches off the floor?
As usual for GM luxury products of this era, the interior is a huge let-down. If you dipped a submarine control panel in fake wood, you’d have a similar level of elegance. I never understood why they had to be so ugly. Style is cheap, maybe even free. OK, so maybe GM had to cut costs and use low-quality material (but that’s a separate debate)… but there’s no reason why they couldn’t have given it a little design flair like their early 1960’s products.
Anyway, it’s true that these are polarising. Even within my own brain, I can’t decide if I admire its boldness and a few bits of brilliance… or if the whole thing is just a cynical exercise in retro design and unjustified pricing.
4″ above the door sill level, the footwell drops down below that
The two-tone Cadillac is actually quite attractive.
That car with a supercharged 3800 V6 with an under drive pulley for some supercharger scream would be a fun, fun sleeper. Wonder how hard the swap would be.
Way too much fakery never mind the crap engines you cant see those the elcheapo fake wire wheels fake radiator shell it just screams Lido junk wagon copy from GM the back was a standing joke when new did they run out of money at the C pillar so the back wasnt styled. The back resembles a 40s Riley RM or Wraith Rolls but badly done.. No I dont like it.
Viewing these from certain angles can make these look pretty nice, color/trim combos even more so. The pictures selected do a good job bringing out the good aspects. The thing that really makes these look awful are those Padded vinyl tops commonly affixed to them. They rarely compliment any car they’re glued to, and this is one of those cars that absolutely shouldn’t have one.
Overall, I like the rear end of the 1980 Seville much more than the lil-Deville style front end.
The Sevilles with the two-tone paint and front seat console have the “Elegante” trim. I believe that the choice of two-tone combos varied from year to year, but in the 80-85 period, I’ve seen silver and maroon and tan/dark brown in addition to the silver/black pictured above.
Love them. Would not want to have to keep one running.
Growing up in the 80s, I was always fascinated by these retro-Seville’s, driven by friends’ parents. My parents had a fox-based Continental instead, which just couldn’t pull off the bustle back the same way.
The 5.0 in the Continental did make it a much more reliable car, however. Were they able to find a mechanic willing to fix the finicky air suspension, my parents would probably still be driving that beast.
Also, I disagree on the interiors – the plain one pictured is just too demure. To really achieve maximum awesomeness, a Seville needs the tufted leather.
So yeah, make mine solid black with chrome wires and tufted red leather, and skip the landau option. Also, drop some sort of Chevy smallblock into it so that it will actually start in the morning.
Funny though, the interior that you call the “plain” interior is actually the upline Elegante interior, with the center console, the pillow top puffy seats were the standard Seville seats through the later half of the model run. I like these, I’ll take an Elegante iin black/silver or burgany/silver 2 tone in a 80-81 model with the 368cid V8.
Allow me, a huge fan of short rear overhangs and just-enough luggage space to state:I don’t like this.
Whenever I mention my liking for short rear decks, this eventually gets thrown at my face. Now I like a fastback, even a bustleback, but it is so artificially tacked onto this car that its ridiculously proportioned. The hood is too long, the design too rectilinear, and the car does not carry its tail. It looks as if the back was transplanted from another car. It looks better to my eye after chopping off the `bustle’ from the back (posted a chopped pic on Paul’s Seville page). A spare wheel on the back and we’re good to go.
The front looks good enough, and the back can be tolerated, but not on the same vehicle. To be sure, the interiors (especially the light-coloured ones) look mighty pleasant, but that is not enough to justify this car. It is radical, true, but so was Patty Hearst. Much good they both did to their parents.
This is not my favourite car, and definitely not a good-looking one to me, but is this a Deadly Sin? I don’t think so. I’m grudgingly on your side, Mr. T, despite the sheer ugliness and craptastic engines of this car.
Thank you. That’s my problem too. The proportions are all wrong. I would fix it by stretching out the rear, since I like rear overhang.
I think kudos to them for trying some thing different, it certainly was distinctive. Perhaps they should have done something other than the standard rectilinear Cadillac front end too, as the combination is jarring. On the interior apart from more boring/standard design, the two-timber treatment makes too little use of the burl veneer that looks so much nicer than the standard grain. I can’t comment on the mechanical ability, but on a small Cadillac that is not going to be a 5/6 seater fwd would be a very important advantage from a space perspective.
Well the most tactful thing I can say for your choice is that there was once a Lincoln that was this butt ugly. Had a cadillac with a real trunk and a 425. Liked it pretty well. Don’t like this.
Even for a chance to stay at Pauls house and use his truck I cannot vote for the caddie.
“The whole car from the rear axle forward is so crisp and well integrated it seems to reflect the ideas of one stylist – let’s hope next year he does the complete car.”
Comments from a stylist on the 1961 Oldsmobile, Motor Trend, December, 1960
Fast forward 20 years…
While they seem a bit on the narrow side, there’s no denying that these cars had and still have Presence.
FWIW the two-toned Elegante in the top picture is owned by car collector Jim Hailey. He has an amazing collection of Caddys and they can be seen here http://jimhaileyclassiccars.com/
In my tiny hometown of Putaruru, New Zealand (population 3000ish), someone bought one of these new in 1983, and I was totally awestruck by it (hey, I was only 9). I remember the first time I saw it outside the local hardware store. It stuck out like a sore thumb as Cadillacs weren’t available new in NZ. Ok, it mostly stuck out due to that rear end… It was two-tone, silver over black, so I assume it was the Elegante model. I remember looking all over it, looking at the badge fonts, the interior, the fake wire wheels. I was in love!. The bustle-back may have been a weird 30s thow-back, but in the early-mid 80s cars were extremely boring in small town NZ, and the style and swagger that Seville brought to our small town was immeasurable. It hung around for years, and even today I find myself drooling over them on trademe (a lot more have arrived ex-USA since my childhood). They’re usually cheapish too, and only the engines have scared me off.
Oh, I haven’t read your competitor’s write-up yet Mr. Tactful, but I don’t need to, as you’ve already won!
Is there no way to transplant a Chevy 350 or a blown six? I know its FWD but someone must have thought about it… That can surely cure all engine troubles.
Just for fun, I modified this Seville ad with fender skirts on the back. While it gives it more of a Hooper Rolls Royce look, I think it makes the rear deck look shorter.
Wow – your treatment almost makes that look work.
Agreed. The Hooper look just screams for a skirted rear fender. This is an improvement, if still a questionable styling direction for the eighties. I’m afraid the Mercedes/BMW direction was by then solidly entrenched as the way to go.
How about a Hooper-ish tri-colour?
The fender skirts do look much better, but this car is still a big “NO!” in my book. Sorry, never liked this gen Seville.
Bravo. I envisioned this in my head many times, and seeing it in actual (artistic) form confirms it!
Huge improvement.
Considering the tasteless dreck people larded these things up with, it’s a shame nobody thought to offer these. Or did they?
Maybe the end of the assembly line pinched them a little too hard as they were squirted out ? The two tone, black and gray one looks the best to me, maybe what a modern day Cruella De Ville would drive “crazy woman driver” ?
I’m with you 100%, T. Which may be because I’ve never driven most of the cars we talk about here, and I judge almost solely on design and story. But still!
My uncle had one of these. It was a 1980, dark blue with blue cloth interior and it was a diesel. I remember thinking what a nice car, but what a loud, awful, smelly engine! My Mom had a 1979 Riviera at the same time and her car seemed so much nicer with the 350 V-8 gas engine. It seemed out of place to have a very elegant, distinctive car sound so loud and unrefined. I remember that my uncle loved this car so much he bought his wife a 1981 Electra Estate Wagon with a diesel as well. They were a 2 diesel family in 1981!! They kept those cars for many years; I’m sure they had a rebuild thrown in there on one of them at one point or another. My uncle would brag how efficient his diesels were. If there ever were a positive advocate for a GM diesel in the 80’s it would have been him! I know there are so many horror stories related to the diesel and Seville in general, so I thought I’d give a positive one.
The Bustleback Seville, best served with a lowered rear suspension, two-tone paint, and way too much under perfected technology.
By 1981 many issues were sorted out on the 5.7 diesel including a water separator, increased head bolt strength and the main bolt threads where drilled out deeper and longer bolts where used to cure the breaking crankshaft and other bottom end problems. They also gained roller lifter and an optional automatic fuel line heater to prevent wax from blocking up the filter. Still many consumers were either clueless about diesel preventative maintenance or were pissed off by the 1977-80 engines that failed prematurely so it was canceled by 1985
The improvements made a close to bullet proof engine, the DX. Wonder why all the diesel critics ignore this?
Flat floor, frameless windows, 2 tones of plastic wood and a dependency on incorrect ride height automatically this for Total Classic Status………………not.
Good try, but water will never go uphill;-)
Poetry, Mr Carr. Three of my thumbs up and a nod from each of my heads.
I’ve been called exotic before as well.
Born to be a DS Forever
The 2nd generation Seville was either a love it design or hate it design. I loved them, had one in my early 20s back in the 90s, I had taken out the 350 diesel and replaced it with a 350 rocket 88 with a Q-jet. I will admit that the interior was cheesy but so were all the other American cars. The 4100 wasn’t the best engines made but a lot of other American engines were not that great either. In fact all the ford engines had the issue of the water pump going out shortly after 60,000 miles and cracking the heads. And it seemed that every American engine produced oil leaks.
The ride of these cars were nice and the front torsion bar suspension allowed them to handle decently for an American luxury of the days. They also had no really large issues like the Lincolns air ride suspension that always failed.
The front wheel drive of these cars were not transverse, they were longitudinal, front to back like a rwd. So there for you could replace the diesel and 4100 engines with a multitude of GM engines. The Olds 350, the 307 from the Toronado and Reviera, the turbo V6 from the Reviera. Anything bigger and with a ton of torque will destroy the tranny for they were not designed to handle that much torque.
I now have a 1985 Eldorado, last of the big ones with a 4100 in it, I love the car. I will probably put a 307 in it if and when the engine goes.
I still have fond memories of my Seville and will probably bye another if I can find one in good condition. The Seville was a very unique style, and pulled it off much better than the Continental or the Imperial. The Continental the trunk was too long and hated that spare tire hump. The interior was also smaller. The engines like all engines of the early 80s was extremely watered down and the early 5.0 had a variable venturi that had nothing but issues.
The Imperial, which I thought was more attractive than the Lincoln was a bit more roomy, had a bit more power than the Lincoln and the Cadillac but had issues with the electronic fuel injection. They were also natorios for leaking oil. The trunk on these though mimicked the Seville, looked like they added a box on the back end, it didn’t flow as nicely as the Seville. The digital instrument panel had a tendency of failing.
So if you look at most American cars from the early 80s they all had some kind of mechanical issues that would cause the cars to fail if not taken care of properly if you could. Not many had good looking body stiles and a lot of them had a tendency of looking like each other.
If you look at just the body style the Seville wins, it flowed better than it’s competition and was unique 90 percent of the other cars.
My mom had one of these back in the day. Black and silver Elegante with wire wheels and whitewalls. Buttery soft pale grey leather. Just a gorgeous and classy car. Wish I still had them both.
I remember seeing this generation Cadillac Seville. At the time, I thought the “bustle-back” rear end of the car was hideous to look at. Overall, it was handsome, but the back didn’t look very attractive. Today, 37 yrs later, I actually find it quite a handsome car, bustle back rear end and all. 🙂
I much prefer the style of the first gen RWD Seville. Harborindiana did this beautiful photochop of the same image at the top of your post a few years ago.
Gene Herman
Clearly the example you show above was 100% influenced by say a 1950’s or early 60’s Rolls-Royce. In every possible way.
You should check out the Seville Coupe (renderings) that never came to production. To avoid challenging the Cadillac Eldorado.
I’m quite familiar with the hideous RWD Seville Grandeur Opera Coupe, Seville Tomaso Coupe and the gorgeous San Remo convertible, but not any FWD coupe proposals. Got a link you could share?
He said “renderings”, not real cars, so he probably means this photoshop that has made the rounds, including CC.
Thanx, Paul. That’s pretty nice. As an admin for a Facebook concept car group, I defaulted to the assumption that he was referring to GM stylists’ design proposal drawings.
I just noticed it’s artandcolour’s stuff. He does great work.
Paul Niedermeyer
The coupe version of the Seville actually looks beautiful and elegant. It looks actually better than the Eldorado Coupe. Boy they should have green lighted this version and priced it about $6K over the Eldorado.
No. Just. . . . no.
Didn’t Chry. corp.
sell a New Yorker bussle back style back in the late 80s or early 90s?
That was the 1981-83 Chrysler Imperial 2-dr.
As an aside, and a bit of trivia, Montreal Canadiens star Guy Lafleur was nearly impaled while driving impaired in a second gen Seville in March 1981. After falling asleep at the wheel, his car struck a chain link fence with part of the fence entering the passenger compartment inside the steering wheel. Looking at the pics, he was amazingly fortunate to survive, escaping with a torn right ear.
I don’t see the styling as a deadly sin, but the poorly engineered power plants certainly were. My Father in Law had a Fleetwood with the variable displacement motor which was okay once the system was deactivated. Good idea just didn’t the technology available to make it reliable. This was a retro design car by a designer that liked retro designs, Bill Mitchell. I had a ’71 Boat tail Riviera which was pretty distinctive and impressive looking.The early 1970s Grand Prixs with the upright grille and large headlamps also had a boat tail design. Maybe not a design for the ages, but Cadillac styling really went into a decline in the remainder of the Eighties. I would take one, an Elegante.
Wow this message board goes insane whenever this car is referenced (a good thing).
Shows how this is a love it or hate it car, there simply is no middle ground (none). Personally I like it, I know I’m in the minority but ohh well I do like it. Has anyone seen the amazing absolutely wonderful renderings of this car in Coupe form. It was not produced so that it would not impose on the Cadillac Eldorado, which already had to contend with the Coupe De’Ville., and Brougham Coupe of 1985. Shame because the Seville looked 2x better in coupe form than the Eldorado PLC. Incredible what two less doors can do for a car!
Love the dash detail photos. Even with fake wood ‘the standard of the world’ couldn’t quite get the grain to match up.
I feel like at this level Cadillac and any other car maker that charges a high premium for their cars needs to install genuine, or either semi-real wood grain trim.
I also wish they would use it more cleverly, there is no need to cover 70% of a dash board with fake wood grain. Rolls-Royce is the only car maker that can pull it off correctly. Because their woodgrain mimics that a a fine piece of furniture.
Damned with faint praise, I’d say. Hardly convincing. Rather satirical.
If you take away the engines and if one does this or that, and excuse the cheesy ultra phony wood in two different tones and if the car is lowered in the rear, and I know it’s not built to the standards of the 60s Cadillacs, what ? Elevation of an over-priced “terrible mode of transportation” into something exotic ?
The definition of a DS.
Not a very good argument to counter it’s appearance on the Deadly Sins list.
Okay for the “What If #1 Series” . But certainly makes it a permanent candidate for a DS.
Paul is right: Deadly Sin. That trunk looks like it was grafted on from 79 Buick Riviera.
Mr. Tactful (the author) made a good point about the deadly sin status of this car. I think the bustleback Seville is a deadly sin IF one considers all 81-88 Cadillacs to be deadly sins. I don’t think the design itself is enough to earn it that status. However, the powertrain quality and overall build quality of all products from the Standard Of The World in the 80’s was bad enough to justify calling the entire line a DS, even if they were cars not without considerable charms. Personally, I love the 79-85 Eldorado and the RWD DeVilles and Fleetwoods. I’ve never hated the bustleback Seville, but I prefer the first generation, even considering its glorified Nova roots. I think Cadillac was showing design leadership with the bustleback. The car may have been polarizing, but you can’t deny that GM threw down the Brougham gauntlet with this car.
Imagine an alternate universe where the late 70’s/early 80’s weren’t spent by automakers obsessing over CAFE and emissions. but rather the engineers had spent their time focused on power, reliability and refinement. How desirable would a 1982 Seville be with a truly great powertrain? I think people would appreciate these cars a lot more.
Sorry, I’m on Team “What Were They Thinking?”
Wasn’t the whole point of the Seville to strike a balance between European luxury and the rest of the Cadillac line? The firstgen did that well, as evidenced by the fact that it continued to sell alongside (and above) the redesigned-for-77 C-body Cadillac that was objectively a better car.
The 1980 model threw that balance away and went full Brougham. That controversial tail made it appeal to people who held even more Gatsby nostalgia than most Caddy buyers of the time, which is why it attracted bad-taste neoclassic add-ons like flypaper.
Most of those people would’ve gone with a Fleetwood or DeVille if Caddy had kept the gen2 Seville in a more international idiom; what was lost were the people who cross-shopped the gen1 with Mercedes. Granted, those engines would’ve lost them anyway, eventually…
My father owned three Cadillacs in this time period: A ’79 Seville, an ’81 Eldorado Biarritz (a gorgeous black exterior with stainless steel half-roof and red leather interior) and an ’84 Seville. The first two I really liked, but the ’84 Seville with the HT4100 was a dog that didn’t accelerate worth a damn OR stop worth a damn.
Having said that, I do have a few observations regarding appearance: Key to looking good was the larger whitewalls that came stock on the cars from the factory (Uniroyals?). I think they were 2-1/2″ whitewalls. The narrower 1″ whitewalls that so many people put on when they replaced the tires weren’t proportional on those cars. The other thing on the bustle back two tone Seville was putting the darker color over the lighter color. See the whitewalls and the black/silver paint scheme of this car: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/7d/0d/71/7d0d710a983b00e730d236d76ee657e0.jpg I personally think that having the darker color on top just worked better.
Elegant in duotone, but far too much faux teak on the dashboard. Far too little engineering refinement under the hood.
These are so bad they’re almost good. Almost, but not quite. Although I will agree that the Imperial version is even worse, this Caddy was a silly neo-retro idea that even Exner in his worst early ’60s fever dream period wouldn’t have dared to imagine. The dashboard in that thing is also dreadful. Looks like a 6-year-old modelled it with Lego blocks and formica.
Calling this car the “Bustleback” reminds me of this dialogue in Frasier:
NILES: And even worse, after I’d left the car off at the body shop, the rental agency didn’t have a single luxury car left. They stuck me with some vehicle I believe they call a “hunchback.”
FRASIER: No, I think that would be a hatchback, Niles.
NILES: It’s painted panic-button red, and has a large rear window that pops open.
FRASIER: Oh, that would be the hatchback.
NILES: Oh. Well, there’s a novel idea. Name the car after its most hideous feature.
Very good. The 80 Seville was nearly a Bustleback, but not really the same as the real ones from the late 30’s.