(first posted 2/9/2015) Friends, Romans, CCers, lend me your ears! I come to praise this 1980 Cadillac Sedan DeVille despite its decrepit exterior condition, not to bury it. The evil of a car design lives after it, the good is often forgotten and sent to the junkyard with it, but let us not allow that to happen with this Malaise Era Cadillac.
This Sedan DeVille is one that I have seen parked on the same street in Washington, DC, near Georgetown University, since the early 1990s; from time to time driven and then re-parked on the same street, gradually becoming more ragged as the years passed, but still alive and running. After this car’s 34 years of existence and my over two decades of seeing it, I have come to speak of what I know about its story.
The downsized 1977 Cadillac DeVille and Fleetwood Brougham continued much of the basic engineering of their enormous 1971-76 predecessors beneath their trimmed down bodies. The unique Cadillac V-8 continued, reduced in displacement from 500 to 425 cubic inches. Output was a respectable 180 horsepower and 320 ft-lbs of torque with a carburetor or 195 horsepower and 320 ft-lbs of torque with the optional electronic fuel injection introduced in 1975, and the (unadjusted) EPA mileage rating was 14 mpg city/20 mpg highway.
With 138,750 Sedan DeVilles, 95,421 Coupe DeVilles, and 28,000 Fleetwood Broughams sold in 1977, a considerable increase over the 114,482 Sedan DeVilles, 67,677 Coupe DeVilles, 6,200 Calais sedans and coupes, and 24,500 Fleetwood Broughams sold in 1976, the market had clearly spoken that the 1977 DeVille and Fleetwood Brougham were right for the times and a success.
The 1980 DeVille and Fleetwood Brougham tweaked the concept further with a more aerodynamic restyling with a more formal roofline that remained almost completely unchanged through 1989, and a Cadillac big block V-8 with displacement further reduced to 368 cubic inches. Retaining the same 4.06″ stroke, it reduced the cylinder bores from 4.082″ to 3.80″. Output now was 150 horsepower and 265 ft-lbs of torque at a barely above idle 1600 rpm from the only version, which used a carburetor with no fuel injection available (digital electronic fuel injection was an Eldorado and Seville-only feature).
Using the same 3-speed THM400 transmission, the EPA gas mileage rating now was 15 mpg city/23 mpg highway. Part of the credit for the mileage rating goes to the ultra-low 2.28:1 final drive ratio used since 1977, introduced along with the 425 and still usable with the 368 with its high torque from just above idle speed.
Photo from www.fleetofcads.com
For comparison, the only German sedan in close to the same class in size and engine configuration and displacement, the W116 chassis Mercedes-Benz 450SEL, had an EPA rating under the same test protocols of 16 mpg city/22 mpg highway. With its single overhead cam, fuel injected 4.5 liter (275 cubic inch) V-8, smaller and more sophisticated than Cadillac’s pushrod-operated overhead valve, carbureted 368 cubic inch V-8, it had essentially the same fuel consumption as the Cadillac.
The shorter wheelbase, six cylinder Mercedes-Benz 280SE paradoxically had a worse mileage rating of 16 mpg city/20 mpg highway, from its 2.8 liter double overhead cam M110 inline six whose low power and poor fuel economy led to diesels becoming the preferred U.S.-market Mercedes engines in the W116 and W123 series.
The Mercedes 4.5 liter V-8 no doubt had advantages in power to weight ratio and peak rpm, and Mercedes’ four-wheel independent suspension was more sophisticated, but in a luxury sedan with a typical driver of such a vehicle during the era of 55 mile per hour highway speed limits, these theoretical advantages probably rarely affected real-world driving.
Few remember 34 years later, but the 1980 Cadillac DeVilles and Fleetwood Broughams — both now available for 1980 as either a four-door sedan or a two-door coupe — had not only enormous interior space and considerable “presence,” but also both surprising fuel economy, and proven reliability and durability from the well-established Cadillac engine under the hood.
It had been a success from its introduction as the 472 V-8 in 1968, and it had evolved gradually for over a decade as the 500, 425, and finally 368. The 368 of 1980 was the last successful general usage of this engine, which acquired the unreliable V8-6-4 electronic controls in 1981, then disappeared in favor of the infamous HT4100 aluminum block V-8 in 1982 except in Fleetwood Limousines and commercial chassis, which used the 368 to move their longer and heavier bodies until 1984.
Identifying the year of this Sedan DeVille was initially difficult because it had no badges on its flanks or trunk lid identifying the engine, announcing “V8-6-4” or “HT4100 Digital Fuel Injection” or “5.0 Liter.” Some research to determine the year of the grille told me why there were no engine badges — this car came from the end of the era when a full size DeVille or Fleetwood Brougham had a Cadillac engine standard, not any of the engines that ruined Cadillac’s reputation with their unreliability, lack of power, or both.
The first dagger came in 1978, with the introduction of the ill-fated Oldsmobile diesel V-8 as an option; a further one in 1981, with the addition of the unreliable V8-6-4 electronic controls to the 368; and the lethal blow in 1982, with the across the board introduction of the underpowered and unreliable HT4100 aluminum V-8 as standard.
The Oldsmobile 307 V-8 that took over as the powerplant for this body style as the “5.0 Liter” in the Cadillac Brougham, in 1986, restored reliability to the engine compartment, but its reduced displacement and power (140 horsepower and 255 ft-lbs of torque) came with an only slightly improved EPA rating of 18 mpg city/25 mpg highway (16 mpg city/23 mpg highway under the current rating system), even with the benefit of the four speed THM200-4R.
Instead of again having more than adequate power from a Cadillac engine, the Brougham would continue with a non-Cadillac engine barely able to move it — a final disappointment. Et tu, Brougham? Then fall, Cadillac!
So here we have a Sedan DeVille from the last of the traditional and fundamentally sound years, with current inspections and registrations and still at least occasionally driven after 34 years. The car has certainly lived a good life, and from the looks of the blue velour interior (identical in color to the interior in this brochure), so has its owner.
The interior had a unique feature that I have not seen before on any car, which reflections on the windows unfortunately did not allow me to photograph: a front seat with completely even wear on the driver and passenger sides. The driver of this car rarely if ever went anywhere alone; he or she apparently always went places together with either a spouse or friends. We all should be so lucky.
The driver and passenger spent all of those trips over the course of 34 years in comfort. With enormous interior and trunk space, soft leather or velour, automatic climate control, and power everything, Today, critics seem obsessed with 0-60 times and whether the wood grain was from a tree or made of plastic. The owner of this car probably did not care about either, and with good reason.
There are probably many 1980 DeVilles and Fleetwood Broughams that have led similar lives as reliable and reasonably economical luxury cars in anonymity, out of the 55,490 Coupe DeVilles, 49,188 Sedan DeVilles, 29,659 Fleetwood Brougham sedans, and 2,300 Fleetwood Brougham coupes produced that year.
Photo from www.gm-classics.com
At least a few enthusiasts have seen further potential in these cars and acted on it. One was Matt Garrett, a collector with an impressive collection of Cadillacs, who built an extreme yet stock-looking luxury muscle car from a 1980 Fleetwood Brougham D’Elegance with a factory Commercial Chassis frame and Astroroof, powered by a 500 horsepower 500 cubic inch Cadillac big block and with Caprice 9C1/Impala SS suspension upgrades.
It was comparable to the renowned Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9, with its big-block 6.9 liter M100 engine, but far more powerful and faster. So although this white 1980 Sedan DeVille may never be considered worth restoring, out of the many who once loved these Cadillacs — not without cause — some mourn their passing and have preserved examples that remind us of what these cars once were and could have been.
Very nice. Sad to see the deterioration, you wonder how it would look had a garage been available.
The 1980 might be the high point that combines styling, power and durability. I liked those updated sombrero wheelcovers in the car in the ad.
Nice article.
However, I wish you hadn’t included the link to Matt Garrett’s ‘muscle Fleetwood’ – because now that I’ve seen it, I desperately want a Caddy like that 🙂
(of course this is a joke, I very much enjoyed reading both articles)
The “Standard of the World Gangster Look” brought to you from behind the walls of Jackson Penitentiary, the Worlds Largest Prison, by “Design.”
He does sell them from time to time – if you go to his site you can see what he has.
Ditto!! 🙂
Ha ha! At school, I wear a toga on the Ides of March and go around reading Mark Antony’s funeral oration. Yeah, I’m weird.
Some of my favorite lines:
“If you shall send them word you will not come,
Their minds may change. Besides, it were a mock
Apt to be render’d, for someone to say
‘Break up the Senate till another time,
When Caesar’s wife shall meet with better dreams.’
If Caesar hide himself, shall they not whisper
‘Lo, Caesar is afraid’?
Schoolyard paraphrase: “Caesar is a chicken, Caesar is a chicken!”
Interesting observation on even seat wear. Matches what I’ve seen over the years. Caddies tend to carry older couples who go everywhere together; and often carry a second couple in the back seat.
I’d love to see it restored to its former glory. The last big and reliable Cadillac before a long dark winter of our discontent.
++1
And remove that ugly vinyl top. This one would look good without it, all in white.
The standard of the world
That was my dad’s last Cadillac, same color. At the time I saw it as a well-executed barge, plenty of room & decent gas mileage. While driving down the old Pasadena Freeway, that hood made me feel it took up 1½ lanes.
I don’t remember why he replaced it with a 1st-gen Panther Town Car, maybe he got tired of the Check Engine Light. Dad bought cars w/o consulting his family. Anyway, it made me miss the deVille’s styling.
After 1980 I am guessing what was passing for an unreliable, slow, joke content Cadillac sold more than a few Lincoln Town Cars.
Ding, ding, ding…
I remember that every Town Car in the parking lot of the golf course my father frequented (in the late 80s to mid 90s) was roughly 1984 and up. They far outnumbered the Cadillacs.
Although they were a contrast to the less affluent and younger members who tended to have pickup trucks or an old muscle car they were holding tightly onto. (Dad’s Mustang fell into the last category.)
It must’ve been CAFE ratios that allowed Ford to get away with selling all those 302 Panthers, for it’s otherwise hard to explain Cadillac surrendering the V8 barge market to Lincoln, esp. since Fords were usually thirstier than GMs of comparable size.
When Dad traded his TC for the 3rd-gen version, the neighbor across the street snapped up his old one, which suggested the latent demand for that type of car.
I figure the 302 Ford was just more powerful with equal fuel economy than anything GM had in the five-liter bracket. The 350 Chevy was good and strong but put a passenger car into the gas-guzzler tax bracket.
The 302 had a bigger bore than the 305, which helped make power, the little 305 had a smallish 3.74″ bore vs. 4″ of the 302 and the GM heads of the times had tiny valves, so the 305 never really had a chance from the factory.
That’s cool that you’ve been seeing this car for the past two decades, witnessing the changes over the years.
The last regular sedan with the old Cadillac V8, THM 400, and no computer. Having driven the Brougham version I’ve often wondered if the non-limousine rear window in the Sedan DeVille would be an improvement. Less “privacy” to be sure, but the visibility would be better.
As you point out, the ’80 is probably the last Cadillac for several decades with componentry that permitted to be competitive, and likely cross-shopped, with some of the foreign competition. The unreliable engines, early THM200 transmissions, and “withering on the vine” of this design that followed would render it a geezer mobile by 1990 that nobody would be weighing against a big Benz. These represent the absolute last moment that Cadillac had it together, still crusing on the high from the positive reviews of the ’77 and ’78 models.
I missed out on the chance to buy one of these in 2006. I was driving the ’87 Brougham to my mechanic for its tri annual issue with the 10000 feet of vaccuum lines connected to the 307/E4ME QJET. He had an ’80 Sedan DeVille out front in that medium blue color, with the dog dish caps. 90K, $2500 OBO. I probably could have traded the newer Brougham and gotten cash back and saved a lot of money going forward. Still kick myself for that one.
+1 Pretty much exactly how I feel about them. Was there still some good to the post-’80 Cadillacs? Yeah, but even by 1981 I think the W126 was making them look archaic.
I’m not going to go so far as “look”. Outwardly, these remained contemporary in styling til about 1985. It was at that time that a car somewhat (if not identical in looks) similar to the ’93 “whale” should have been introduced, with EFI, overdrive, and a more aero look.
Inwardly, as soon as the engines and transmissions ceased to be competitive, these were not comparable. I might still have preferred one from an aesthetic point of view, but there’s no way a 307 carbureted V8 should have been powering the 1987 version of this car.
Agree on the engines–if it wasn’t going to have a Cadillac engine, they should have given it an engine appropriate of the car at least. The 307 was not that engine. The Chevy 350 would have been the obvious choice, but if they couldn’t do that without running afoul of CAFE, the next best choice would have been the Chevy “HO” 305 as used in the Camaro and Monte Carlo SS.
The 350-4bl Old engine at the time put out 170 HP compared to the Chevy 145 and 165 HP 350 engines and the Olds got better emissions as well
Indeed this was the last year of the 300-400K mileage potential Cadillacs. I wouldn’t write off a good running 1988-90 307 Brougham either as they also have the potential to live many miles. Those three model years have 2.93: rear gears instead of 2.73 for 1986-87 307 cars or 2.28:1 for 1980-81 368 models. They also have spark control in these years and I knew a few guys with these cars that hopped there 307’s up to 442 motors with upgraded cam, valve springs, tweaked carb secondaries and a lower restriction exhaust. This seemed to give more all around power even if it sacrificed a little low end response. If I found a mint low mileage Brougham that was 307 powered it would get the 442 engine treatment and a set of 3.42 rear gears from a 1982-85 HT 4100 car. There are actually two such Devilles in my local pick and pull and both have there original 3.42 rear ends in tact.
I had a 307 powered ’87 Brougham some years back, damn good dependable car.
What about the 90-92 350 Brougham? Yes, it’s a Chevy engine, but that seems like the pick of the litter to me post 1980. More power, far more torque and the good reputation of the late TBI 350. The 1990 styling tweaks with the composite lamps aren’t to some people’s taste, but they work for me.
I prefer the composite lamps, personally.
The 1991-92 models equipped with small block, fuel injected 305 or 350, pick up where the 1980 left off. Finally some power with decent gas mileage (305).
Back in 1991, I rented one of the last Broughams, a white 350 with burgundy leather. It was like driving your living room around at 70 mph. Good times…
I thought the 1980 restyle looked a lot better in the sedans than the coupes (didn’t like the 1980+ full sized coupes at all), the sedans are really nice cars but it’s a shame those built from 1981-85 suffered through poor, underpowered engines and poor reliability
I liked the ’77-’79 versions more, never much cared for the sharply creased, upright lines on the ’80s Deville/Fleetwood. And the reliability woes and engineering gaffes really tarnished Cadillac’s full-sizers in the early ’80s. The strangely-styled bustleback Seville, The puny Cimaron and the downsized shrunken Eldo really did the brand in, bringing the pain full circle. In all, the 1980s were a terrible decade for Cadillac and it struggles even today to bring back the lost magic.
My uncle had a ’79 Buick Electra Limited, essentially the Buick version of this car. It was beautiful, with lots of interior room, nice furnishings and a cushy ride. A shame this car is in such poor shape.
Disagree with you on the downsized Eldorado, unless you’re talking about the ’86 model. The first downsized models of ’79 were among the best American cars of the era. But the really downsized ’86-’91 models were one of the worst product failures in automotive history.
I was referring to the drastically downsized ’86-91 models, sorry I should have made that clear. the ’79-85 Eldo and its stablemates was one bright spot at GM during that time.
But apart from the ’79-85 Eldo, everything else during the ’80s turned into a big steaming pile at Cadillac.
Robert, you have reversed the production numbers for the deVilles in the 70’s. The Coupe deVille was a better seller than the Sedan deVille throughout the 70’s. It was in the early 80’s that things changed for the Coupe deVille. In fact, 1980 was a bad year for Cadillac in general as sales decreased over 27% from the previous year.
1980 was a bad year for pretty much any model of car that was larger than a compact, due to the 1979 energy crisis and its attendant recession. At GM, the new FWD X-cars and the fuel-efficient Chevette did great, the aging H-bodies (Monza/Sunbird, in their final full model year) did OK, and almost everything else probably experienced a significant sales decrease. Still, it could have been worse; they could have been Ford…
1980 was a bad year for cars in totality, wasn’t it? Not talking about sales numbers, I’m talking about the cars themselves.
I mean, the car in this article is probably the closest thing to a shining moment of automotive greatness as far as 1980 is concerned. Or am I just being overly cynical?
Hard running car. Best of all it’s a cadillac.
My short stint with GM was over in 1982. I had the good fortune to be “forced” to long term test a deactivated 8-6-4 Fleetwood Coupe. White with the burgundy leather. Perhaps the best luxury experience of driving to that date in my young life. I was already programmed to feel 150 horsepower as adequate, and my upward mobility desire had me in ‘wanna-be” mode, so this car was perfect for me and for the time. I think I probably had it for 3-4 months without a hiccup. I do not believe I have seen a two door Fleetwood since that time. If one were to come up, it would make a perfect foil for my MarkVIII. I think I would alter my usual stock plans and attempt to adapt the 472/500 for power. Full circle, I guess. I just wish my Dad were here to collaborate. This car represented Cadillac’s last gasp as “Standard of the World”.
It was stupid of GM to drop the fuel injection on this car and relegate it to only Eldos and the Seville. In 1975 it looked like GM was looking into the future and seeing that carbs were going the way of the dinosaur and that the future was fuel injection (which it was) and then they drop back and stick in an engine with a carb.
Then there was the V8-6-4 engine offered the next year. Despite what many folks think, that engine was not a bad engine itself and the concept was good(most car makers use Variable Displacement in their cars now) it was just the electronics of the day were just too primitive for the job at that time.(had they rolled out this engine in the late 1980’s it would have worked out). Most folks had this system deactivated at the dealership(you clipped one wire) and the engine then gave its owners years of trouble free driving because the engine itself was sound.
But instead of GM deciding to try to improve the engine or simply offer the engine without the cylinder deactivation (it was a damn fine running engine mechanical wise) they dropped it by 1984 and instead offered a the HT4100 in the cars.
I’ve always kinda wanted to get a V8-6-4 just to dick around with/see if I could get it to function as intended. There’s a lot of good documentation out there on GM EFI and supposedly they kept updating it through ’84 in the Commercial Chassis/Limos. A guy I used to work with, a huge Caddy nut, had a Seville equipped with the 8-6-4 in the ’90s and claimed it worked flawlessly for him… so that makes at least one of them that worked properly!
I’ve caught a superclean one running around with a V8-6-4 badge. I’ve seen it a few times but have’t been able to ask the owner if its still running the original engine.
Nice picture!
It probably does, the actual engine was not the problem in these cars. That was bullet proof. It was the solenoids on the engine that gave the issues. To fix it and to lock it in to V8 mode permanently, you simply cut a wire going to the transmission which told the computer that the car was cruising(a yellow wire I believe) and then the engine behaved well and gave you years of trouble free issues. Yea it probably bothered the greenies or the folks in charge of the CAFE numbers or folks in the California government in charge of CARB that it was now back to the same gas guzzling and smog producing Caddy it was the year before but to most folks that bought the cars, gas mileage was not really a concern.
The 4.1 was really more intended for the FWD cars that GM had in the works. But GM felt that they would miss CAFE targets no matter how they tweaked a fuelie 368, and GM had made a corporate decision that they would not accept having to sell any car with gas guzzler tax.
People criticize that decision all the time, but I don’t think GM had any real choice. It’s one thing if a smaller non-U.S. automaker has a couple of gas guzzlers or misses its CAFE targets; if they’re only selling a few thousand of those cars in the States anyway, it’s not like it represents any great environmental disaster or affront to the public interest. For the largest U.S. automaker to flaunt the rules would have been quite another matter. That’s the kind of thing that puts regulators in a mood to get really punitive in hopes of setting an example for others.
This single asinine decision was the start to the mess Cadillac still faces today. And the 5.7 diesel being std equipment in some 1980 models didn’t help along with offering carbureted Buick V6’s for 1980-82. The 368 could easily have been made to increase MPG enough to escape a guzzler tax with lower gearing and an overdrive automatic transmission.
My 1981 Consumer Guide auto lists a 351 2BBL V8 tied to an overdrive transmission as being available on the Panther series cars. If Ford could work that out with a carburetor then a FI 368 should have been abel to pull it off.
Didn’t last long though. I’m not sure what the last year was for the 351 being an option across the board, but for most of the 80’s through to the end of the box Panthers in ’91, the 351 was only available on the P71 police package cars. I think that was a 4bbl variant.
Please bring back velour seats, it’s far more luxurious than (p)leather….pillow top velour is even better. I’m drooling over those blue seats.
Here’s this car’s New York cousin, parked in front of a graveyard:
I haven’t been seeing this car for two decades, but it’s been there that long. It’s been a regular sighting for me over the past 5 years… which is as long as I’ve been working in the neighborhood. The owner just sold it recently, which makes me very sad – but its sale also enabled me to learn its history (it has a webpage!) with an interesting story and lots of photos over the years.
Apparently it lived, and continues to live, a very happy life – and has apparently racked up 450k miles on its original 425! I remember hearing it start up one cold morning when it was missing its exhaust and it still sounded healthy and strong. I always meant to stop and talk to the owner, but never got around to it… I took for granted that it might not always be there!
http://www.thecadillacwiththetigerinit.com/
Here it is when it was just a teenager, on a road trip to its birthplace:
I’ve seen this one too, downtown!
Thanks for that link! The car has quite the fascinating story, and how many cars get to tell it in their own words?
Hopefully the new owner will update the web site at some point.
Did we get the “fancy” engines in these here in Canada? I just recall seeing Chevy or Olds engines in these.
We had one in the family with the Buick 4.1, a credit option- had a 4 barel carb and the same hp and slightly more torque than the infamous 4100. Never had issues. The 4.1 was not quite Cadillac like.
My business partner drove a 1982 black Deville around for 3 years with slightly over 100K miles that had the Buick 4.1 V6. It needed a new choke pull off and the catalytic converter was partially plugged but after that was done I was quite surprised how well that little engine moved that boat around. The only time you noticed a lack of power was when a quick burst of passing power was needed and it just wasn’t there or long steep grades.
Seems like most of the 1980-92 full sized RWD Cadillac’s I see today are those built from 1986 onward due to them having the 5.0 Liter V8 engine, I definitely agree the 1977-79 version was far superior in style, reliability and power.
I wonder if the featured car was purchased at Capitol Cadillac, now located outside the capital in Greenbelt, Maryland. I remember their radio jingles from the 80s!
Nice run down on the run down of the Cadillac engine. I believe technically Cadillac could have kept the 368 or even the 425 going in the high production models if they had been willing to risk some gas guzzler taxes. I believe GM had an edict that guzzler taxes would not happen – perhaps one of their bigger strategic errors.
I’m always amazed that this body will still turn up on my local rust belt roads in very good condition. Would you believe last Friday leaving the Costco parking lot as I was pulling in? In nice condition, these look positively patrician and unfortunately very much from another era.
Another damned brougham.
Crush it. Now.
Damn that is one ragged looking Caddy!! Not a lot of love going on there I think!!
I don’t think it would be fair to compare a Fleetwood to a 6.9 as the 6.9 cost twice as much and was not a disposable car. Having owned Fleetwood’s from the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, and having spent a good deal of time with 6.9’s I can tell you there is no comparison no matter what kind of engine the Fleetwood might have installed.
I liked the 80’s Fleetwood, especially the coupe.
I always have liked that color on a luxury car.
Hey, what happened to Carmine????????????????
It’s a shame they killed the 368 in 1984, since gas prices plummeted the next year (a major factor in the collapse of the USSR) when the Saudis opened the spigots. But they probably just made extra in 1981 for later commercial sales. So many of GM’s bad decisions were really stupid only in hindsight or were forced by government.
I drive a 1978 Cadillac DeVille regularly and I feel that the styling of the 1977-1979 cars was much nicer. The “formal” roofline really didn’t age very well in my opinion.
The 425 is all about torque. It peaks at 2000 RPM and with the 2.28:1 rear axle, it works out to exactly 70 mph. All GM cars of the 1960’s-1970’s were designed to run at 65-70 mph. It will go up a mountain road in high gear without breaking a sweat. It was a motor that was worthy of a Cadillac car. As a matter of fact, I gunned it up Roger’s Pass.
The 368 simply wasn’t worth it. The EPA rating is a big 1 mpg better and it loses 45 hp.
I have never even come close to the EPA ratings. It’s a big heavy car and I am not exactly easy with the right foot. Using US measures, in the city 12 MPG is about it and maybe 15-16 MPG on the highway
What did Cadillac change to add 2″ of rear legroom in the 1980 models (noted in the ad)?
The squarer roofline may have allowed them to move the rear seat back a bit and it’s probably more upright. Wheelbase and A pillar didn’t change.