(first posted 3/19/2012) There were innumerable milestones in GM’s terminal decline, but the Cadillac Seville makes for a very convenient set of markers. In its four incarnations as GM’s most expensive car, the Seville almost perfectly marks the trajectory of its parent company; from the haughty over-reach and cynical pricing of the first one in 1975, when GM’s market share was still around 45%, to the misguided attempts to create a world-class sports sedan of the last.
But it was the second generation that really marked the turning point: the 1980’s were GM’s worst decade ever in terms of market share loss; and the Seville (along with that other DS, the Citation) kicked off that decade from hell in grand style: a near-perfect synthesis of wretched design and ruinous engineering. The halo car was now the devil’s pitchfork car.
A brief recap: it wasn’t bad design that earned the gen 1 Seville its (controversial) DS; it was GM’s cynical pricing that resulted in a somewhat improved Chevy Nova at four times the asking price. That, along with modest performance and quality glitches gave notice that GM was over-reaching dangerously. But its “sheer look” styling was certainly a refreshing break from the seventies bulge-mobiles, even if GM quickly destroyed its equity by conferring it on almost every mid and full-size car the company made within a couple of years.
The gen 1 Seville evoked exclusivity (before its lines were cloned) thanks to its finely chiseled looks, and was perhaps as original as anything that came from Bill Mitchell’s studios. It manages to evoke certain Rolls-Roycian qualities of poise and class without being derivative. Too bad Bill didn’t retire a few years earlier; the 1975 Seville would have made a fine last shot. But then what’s a retirement without a drunken office party and some fun under the drafting tables?
image: deansgarage.com
Speaking of drinking, this Cadillac V16 concept was rendered by Cadillac designer Wayne Kady in 1967. OK, I understand that renderings are where ideas are created and fleshed out, but take a close look at the size of the dash and steering wheel. I didn’t realize that Cadillac was proposing to put one of GM’s Detroit Diesel V16s under the hood; or maybe even a GM EMD V16 locomotive engine. GM had such great resources to draw on then; why not put a tug-boat V16 to good use?
Enough of that; it’s good to let our juvenile imaginations loose once in a while, and I would have been proud to come up with something like that in fourth grade. So here is the source of the Seville’s inspired bustle back; well, in America, that is.
Of course the origins are older than that, and obviously Mr. Kady had a certain RR Sedanca DeVille by Hooper in mind (or pinned to his drawing table) when he so lavishly rendered his creative vision for a future replacement of the 1967 Eldorado. His design was not chosen for that, but ironically, Kady did lead the design team for the 1971 Eldorado, another Deadly Sin. Actually, Mr. Kady may well become a DS record holder, since he also gets the credit for the gen3 Seville, along with a few other GM stinkers of the times.
Derivative styling: nothing new (literally). Bill Mitchell cast a wide net in search of ideas to feed his designers. It’s well known that the roof line and other knife-edge details of the handsome 1963 Riviera were also influenced by Hooper as well as other European coachbuilders. But there’s a big difference between synthesizing something original and just grafting on an isolated detail, like that bustleback trunk.
Although Kady’s red V16 design had been turned down earlier, after he became head of Cadillac exterior design in 1974 he lobbied for it again, against the objections of Cadillac GM Ed Kennard. But Bill Mitchell took a shine to it, and with his influence, it was adopted for the 1980 Seville.
At least part of the problem with the 1980 Seville is that its tail was never conceived to be used on a four door sedan. Kady’s V16 coupe concept was not used for the all-new 1979 Eldorado coupe (top), a rather rectilinear design that worked reasonably well enough. In a cost-saving move, the Seville lost its unique body, and was forced to share the Eldorado’s fwd platform and much of its body structure. That alone set up the Seville for its disjointed look: a very rectangular front three-fourths, with an abrupt change to that drooping tail.
What makes the original Hooper RR design work is that the sweep of the front fenders mirrors the sweep of the roof and trunk. All three lines converge at the tail; elegant indeed, if obviously a bit over the top. Kady’s V16 bustleback already looks inorganic and a grafted on. But it was always intended to be a coupe. Oh well, the Eldorado was out the door, so you take what you can get.
casey/artandcolour’s take on a Seville coupe is an improvement, relatively speaking, assuming the bustle-back speaks to you at all. It either does; or doesn’t. The 1980 Seville was a very polarizing design, and it’s pretty obvious what camp I’m in; and I’m unlikely to sway you if you’re in the other. If only certain other aspects of the Seville were merely polarizing, instead of just unmitigated disasters, like its engines. Who out there is a lover of them?
For some reason lost in the haze of diesel smoke, the 1980 Seville’s standard engine was the disastrous Olds 350 (5.7 L) diesel V8. To the best of my memory, the Seville was the only GM car thus cursed. One had to get an optional Olds 350 (160 hp) or the Cadillac 368 (oddly with only 145 hp) to avoid the 350 diesel’s self-destructive ways.
No need to rag on about it endlessly, but GM took shortcuts in its conversion from gasoline to diesel, and the result was that this engine single-handedly killed the Great American Diesel Epoch. Americans tend to be a forgiving folk, but then GM never really apologized, did they?
Perhaps Cadillac wanted to emulate the success of Mercedes’ 300 SD, realistically its main competitor. A tough act to follow though: the little MB three-liter turbo-diesel cranked out 120 hp, compared to 105 hp for the almost twice as large Olds 5.7. And these Mercedes diesels are famously durable, as we all well know in Eugene, given how many there are here still clattering away. I’ve been desperate but unsuccessful at finding any Olds 350 diesel powered car, despite the huge number built.
But in 1981, the W126 300 SD was hot stuff; thanks to its aerodynamic body it could hit 110 mph, and cruise effortlessly at ninety plus. Well, we could do a styling comparison between these two, but why bother? The Mercedes vs. Cadillac factions are deeply entrenched.
Back to the Seville’s engine travails. In 1981, things only got worse; much worse, actually. The gasoline Olds 350 was gone, and the Cadillac 368 V8 now sported the legendary V8-6-4 cylinder de-activation system. Two of the biggest engine lemons in one car; what a distinction.
Thankfully, Cadillac hedged their bets on a third engine choice, but it was hardly lemonade: the Buick V6 was now available too. Slightly enlarged to 4.1 liters and brimming with 125 hp, it hardly provided the kind of luxurious motoring Cadillac had always stood for. Given that the Seville weighed 4000 lbs, power-to-weight ratios for the diesel and V6 were back to what was common in the thirties or forties. Progress! At least the Buick V6 was likely to keep making some (slow) forward progress in a Seville, unlike its two V8 stablemates.
But hope springs eternal (until all the customers are gone), and in 1982, the Cadillac’s all-new 4.1 liter aluminum HT4100 V8 appeared. What excitement in the land; it was only the third all-new Cadillac ohv V8, following its proud predecessors of 1949 and 1968. But the great hopes were dashed as quickly as the following all-too inevitably happened: “failure of the intake manifold gasket due to scrubbing of the bi-metal interface, aluminum oil pump failure, cam bearing displacement, weak aluminum block castings and bolts pulling the aluminum threads from the block.” (from wiki).
The fact that this wonder of GM high technology made all of 125 hp, the same as the venerable Buick V6, only adds to the aura of utter failure that quickly consumed this little pile of aluminum. Even Mercedes’ notoriously weak-chested 3.8 L V8 managed 155 hp, and a BMW 733i churned out 181 hp from 3.3 liters. Oh well. Americans are a forgiving folk, right?
No wonder the Seville was a sales disappointment, selling at 40 to 50% lower levels than its predecessor. And the Seville’s demographic skewed the wrong way too. The Seville was supposed to bring in younger affluent buyers to augment Cadillac’s blue-hairs. Instead, the Seville’s median buyer was sixty, four years older than the Cadillac median buyer. More salt in the wounds, which were bleeding red ink. A remarkable investment, though; at least until it’s time to trade it in. Remarkable depreciation.
But there were compensations for the $60k (adjusted) that Seville owners paid: the finest space-age “woods”, tastefully tailored seats, high quality instrument panel components, and elegant timeless design of the highest international caliber; all designed to effectively woo the import buyer back to mother GM’s arms. Never mind the quality of how they were all lovingly assembled. Nothing less would do for Cadillac’s flagship luxury car.
Pity the poor souls who were suckered into buying those German taxi-cab Mercedes, with their penalty-box interiors. Crude, harsh and tasteless. Amazing what folks will endure just to try to stand out from the masses.
For six long years, Cadillac kept churning out these Sevilles, watching its market share decline like the slope of its “slantback” tail. If there’s any consolation in them, it’s that their gen 3 successor was an even bigger bust. And unlike that wart of a car, the slantbacks at least offer us…a hearty laugh. That’s good for the soul, even if it’s going straight to hell.
And here’s just the ride to take it there.
Very easy to trash a car that has not been taken care of and use those pictures as an example. Very easy to trash one car make and pretend that the others had no issues.
I have had a 71 MB 220 diesel 65 hp in a 2 ton car, yes they would run for ever but was slow as he’ll. They also had a tendency of rusting out to the point that the body would fall apart.
Had a 75 280 C , rust was another problem and the emissions always had issues making the engine run rough.
Had a 76 280 SE , rust and electrical problems.
Had a 1981 300 SD, electrical problems, air-condition problems and was slow as he’ll.
The seats in all of these would collapse after rears making the cars very uncomfortable to sit in, and the interior trim would crack or fall apart.
These cars were also very hard and expensive to work on.
BMWs and all the other European imports became popular because of the movies and the yuppie movement of the eighties. Young people did not want a 30 ft long car, or chrome, or bench seats.
They wanted something a bit smaller, with low amounts of chrome on the car with bucket seats.
They also wanted big hair and dressed like Miami Vice so go figure.
I also had Lincolns and Mercuries. The Lincolns was from the seventies so they were huge gas hogs that always tended to have emissions issues and rust issues. The moon roofs always had issues with leaking no matter what you did, and the auto lamps was unreliable.
The two 1989 Mercuries I had, had electrical issues and the water pump would go out after 60,000 miles and because you had idiot lights, no gauges, you ended up screwing up the heads.
The newer Lincolns I had, had air suspension issues and also had tendencies of over heating, the dealer couldn’t even figure out what was wrong.
The 3 Cadillacs I have had, my 82 Seville I should have never gotten rid of, the 2001 Deville I had issues out of the north star engine at 40,000 miles, and I now have a 1985 Eldorado that I refuse to get rid off, something happens to the engine, I will replace it or rebuild it.
a 1971 MB 220D weighs about 3100 lbs, not 4000. Yes, its slow.
Sun roof leaks and electrical glitches were hallmarks of the 70’s and 80’s Ford era cars.
I always wondered what the shrunken 1986 Seville would have looked like if they continued the “bustle-back” treatment. I am not the first person to try this, but here is my rendition of this idea.
This car has a lot of early memories for me as a kid. My parents bought one from my Maternal grandparents in 1988. A 1981 Seville. It was a Tan/Champagne color with a matching velour interior. Wire hubcaps, It had the V6 engine. My parents got it for a low price from my grandparents because the reverse gear in the transmission was toast. It did still drive forward though. We also had a 1976 Mercury Grand Marquis that was midnight blue with either a blue vinyl or leather interior. That was a much nicer car than the Cadillac. My family recalls that as well.
I remember my parents sticking their leg out of the door of the Seville and pushing it out backwards when it was time to go somewhere. Parking in pull through spaces whenever possible in public.
Thieves really loved that car. We lived in Southeast Denver back then. Not the worst of areas, but still, we had that car for about two or three years. During that time there were 4 attempts to steal the car. Each time, they would rip that steering column open and get it hotwired, only to realize that the reverse gear did not work and they would just leave it there in its apartment parking stall. I remember the colorful array of steering columns that my dad managed to procure: First time he got lucky and found one that matched the interior (tan), next came a bordello red steering column. 3rd attempted theft: Gray. And last but not least, we ended on dark blue.
The fixed glass panel on the back door was what they usually broke to access the interior. I remember that our car did not have tinted windows but at one point, the replacement panel was tinted. My dad got a glass razor and removed the tint.
I remember the interior being plush but there was something wrong with it it in the exhaust I think because it smelled after long periods of driving and I remember getting headaches from being in it. I never really got the design, and I certainly never understood the theft appeal either. My parents later on had a 1985 Eldorado Biarritz that I liked much better than this oddly shaped Seville. I recall that these Sevilles were also very expensive to repair and when things went wrong it cost my folks a pretty hefty sum as far as repairs go.
The trunk was what I remembered as being so very strange. I would see other normal looking Cadillacs (I think they were Fleetwoods from the same design era) and I would long for a normal trunk for the Cadillac we were in.
you need to do a little reading and research before you start typing garbage as if it were fact. These were great cars……you need a new hobby.
They were indeed garbage! Facts are facts.
My aunt bought an ’80 with the olds 350 gas engine. I remember it was only driven occasionally. She stopped driving soon after buying it. Whenever I rode it it as a child I always thought the interior was really nice. She died in the 90’s and by that time the car only had 13k miles on it. It was in remarkably good shape. When driving it around we got all kinds of weird stares. Cars didn’t age that well back then and I recall my father made a number of repairs to rubber parts before he sold it. An effeminate middle aged man bought it for his mother and we never saw it again. It was probably a very rare combination of the good engine and low miles. I wonder if it survived.
The ’80 Seville was Cadillacs first of many fatal errors to disgrace the once prestigious brand. Not only was the ’80 Seville an ugly automobile, it was a product born in a time when the worst things imaginable were occurring in the US auto industry. These Sevilles were plagued with so many quality issues and recalls that the damage to Cadillac was spreading like cancer. With the egregious Olds built diesel as the standard power plant in the Seville, and the even more troublesome six liter with cylinder deactivation that followed the next year, and then the actrocious 4100 V8 a year later, it seemed as though the division was possessed! Whew, what alot of garbage Cadillac was pushing off as “quality luxury automobiles” back in those dark, gloomy, olden days of the ’80’s. Mercedes Benz, BMW and even Jaguar never stooped to such low standards as did the American luxury cars. Even though Cadillac has made major, major strides in recent years they still fall tremendously short in style, design, driving dynamics, quality and desirability compared to the masterpieces that Mercedes Benz and BMW are building.
As someone who previously owned a 2007 E350 and traded it for a 2014 CTS, I assure you that Mercedes is not a superior vehicle nor a masterpiece.
Agreed. If I could write a book on customer’s family members, Doctors and lawyers etc that had a Mercedes that broke down or needed loads of expensive repairs it would be a large volume indeed. Heck my late great uncle had a mid 70’s Mercedes diesel and that damn thing was always giving him grief. he traded it in on a 1981 Buick Century Limited with the std Buick 231 V6 and never looked back. And that was a first year C3 computer emission system 231 V6 which was notorious for issues later in there life.
I’ve always liked the “Bustle-Backed” look of the Cadillac Seville of this era. If only Cadillac chose better drivetrain than they did. The V-8-6-4 was a disaster. The 5.7 litre V8 diesel engine was poorly made. GM should be damned ashamed of themselves for releasing such a nice looking car with such indifferent quality drivetrain.
I must be a very lucky man, I had a 84 Seville I bought used with 30,000 miles on it with a 4100 engine and I drove it until it had 115,000, the engine overheated when the fan belt broke on the freeway and nobody would let me over I still think that is one of the nicest cars I have ever owned, I would get compliments and thumbs up EVERY DAY. it was white with a blue cabrolet top, I wish I still had that car today, someone let me know when a clean one comes up for sale at a reasonable price
Phil – I do not know how this posting works, but I own a couple of Sevilles , here in Central Montana. They are always in ‘under cover’ and though I cannot say the 85 is worth what I have into it… it is in very good condition. It’s a dark blue cabrolet top over a silver body with blue leather interior – all of which are in remarkable condition.
I bought it on Craigslist – from what turned out to be a lying ‘tweeker’ to which my colleague who went to get it for me – would have just as soon killed the bastard, and the world would be a better place!)) This was in W. Seattle WA. I had to drive to WA with a tow dolly – because the lying scumbag said it was perfectly derivable… except he did not mention the ‘air pump’ was in-op and the drive belt removed…. so the brakes were ‘all but non-existent’ !! There were other issues with the fuel injection, power steering pump, etc… for which all the replacement parts we bought came to something around $ 900.00 Yes the guy was a POS.. and that does not mean Point of Sale!!… It is a good think I did not go there myself to get it – because I would have accrued a felony assault charge!
However – and all that being said – I have some good mechanics in my company and the car is now in excellent running order – and probably not worth the $5 K that I have into it…which does not include any of the parts, labor – travel and towing expense (fuel, lodging, etc) to get it back to Montana, but if you are interested you can find me here… I suppose.
Why would I sell it? I wanted to use it for an ‘airport car’ for guests flying to do business with us, but we have several other cars and I think I just did a dumb thing by purchasing this – ‘site unseen’… because I trusted this lying POS !
The tires are a good brand radial – windows are ‘not tinted’ yet. The interior is as close to flawless as you can get.. and the carpet and headliner are also ‘near perfect’!! All the body fillers are perfect and except for the lies about the roadworthy condition of the car.. it is truly in ‘excellent shape’ with no fading or anything as to the paint. All the chrome is perfect and the weather seals are also… Oh.. and the mileage??? I will have to look but I think it is around 60K.
I do not know how you might reach me though this site – but if you post back, I am sure we can connect.
I really despised the 1980 series Seville styling. Then there were the obnoxious add ons like cabriolet roof treatments, coach lamps, and faux wire wheel covers that look like a$$ on the Seville for some reason
I owned a 1980 Coupe de Ville de Elegance, and that was a lovely car. It was unmistakably a Cadillac.
Claims that the bustleback were a sales dud are way off the mark, or a direct contributor to Cadillac’s loss of market share. It sold about 40k units in 1980, 1984, and 1985. 1985 was Cadillac’s all time volume high. E body sales were limited by capacity. It’s easy to say that Cadillac was selling to people who should buy Buicks, but 1985 was Buick’s all time high, too (Buick’s only million year).
The US auto market dropped more or less in a straight line from 1979 to 1982. The 1980 Seville was down by 20 percent while the refreshed C bodies were down 50 percent.
GM had to tie pork chops to the small, bland, mechanically virtuous , and oh so European 1986 Seville to get dogs to chase it down the street. It was a disaster with a capital DISASTER.
A polarizing design indeed. To me it epitomizes the Middle American fascination with exhibitionist, Liberace “gingerbread” (fake wires, carriage roof, gratuitous chrome or gold trim, retro aft styling) that Iacocca first exploited to great profit. “Hey, look at me! I’m rich!!”
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound.” Recently I even saw a Lexus with a carriage roof. When will this fad die out?
Tone aside, you happen to be somewhat correct, folks out here in flyover country like our kitsch, and proudly so.
Personally, I love the bustle back Seville.
I know they had crappy drivetrains, but as far as styling, I always liked these. At least they looked different without being too bizarre. You knew what they were when you saw one. ‘Course I’m one of the nuts who thinks the Aeroback Buicks and Oldsmobiles look ok too.
+1
One deadly sin per day! Nice yield!
Like a good train wreck you just can’t make yourself look away. A wretched, tortuous treat for the eyes.
This.
The bustle just might have worked on a long-hood-short-back coupe like the Eldorado, but on a sedan it tortures the soul.
GM committee-think at its stupidest.
Actually, it’s well known that this wasn’t a committee process. It’s the opposite. One designer wanted very much to see the bustleback in production as either a coupe or a sedan, and the head of the brand was willing to give it a chance as a sedan. The car itself was successful in the showroom, except for a period when a) the whole market was in the toilet and b) Cadillac put terrible engines in all of its cars.
The only possible criticism of the 1980–1985 Seville is that it wasn’t the long term future of Cadillac, although Cadillac’s actual long-term-future car, the 1986 Seville, was a notorious sales disaster that makes the bustleback look like genius in comparison.
Deal Old Roger made some of the stupidest decisions ever during his stint at GM. That is a well known fact.
Very hard to argue with the case for why this car is a DS. In the past I’ve been rather defensive of many DSs (I’m sure I remain so for some examples), but it’s hard to argue when you’re talking about GM’s flagship brand. There’s only one thing I wrestle with, and that’s the question of how one would reconcile the Cadillac aesthetic and brand image with import-chasing technology, ergonomics and road manners. Changing Cadillac’s image would had to have happened well before a car like this was made. Cadillac’s current shift has been met with mixed success and can’t be cheap. And even if successful, it’s probably a bit late. The future belongs to the likes of Tesla, the BMW i lineup, etc.
GM probably needed to coordinate Cadillac’s development with the Opel flagships’ by the late ’60s to avoid the trap they were in during the Seville years, where losing their core of ultra-conservative buyers was too large a risk to take. And I still feel that shaking that image and styling heritage is impossible with their current lineup of dynamically first-rate sedans; they’re still tacky.
But Tesla’s nasty post-accident battery fires? might put a damper on their success. Tricky business, storing potential energy safely. Toyota PR materials emphasize safety of the Mirai’s hydrogen storage.
I’m beginning to warm up a little on current Cadillac design, especially the sedans.
As you say, they seem to have made significant strides in driving dynamics, which is a great quality to be focussing on for a domestic luxury brand. But I’d also give them credit for trying to come up with an original look, something very hard to do these days, one that is unmistakably American and yet also disciplined and with elements of sophistication. They are a little over the top in some respects, but I’m more curious than with most other domestic brands to see where they’re heading.
Roommate of mine had a bustleback in the mid-to-late 90s. We drove it all the way from Illinois to Texas and back on a road trip with no issues, and he still had it into 2000. Must have been one of rare screwed-together-well ones.
It was a fun car for a bunch of college kids. Silver metallic with bordello red leather interior.
Maybe i’m looking at this wrong, but the reason I think luxury domestic’s don’t sell in anything like the volumes they have in the past is because they offer nothing of substance over less expensive cars anymore. Back in 79 for instance, they’re was a big difference in product differentiation, size, amenities, and general comfort between a $5000 Ford Fairmont and a $11,200 Lincoln Continental. Nowadays, at least in my opinion, that no longer exists between a $34,000 top line Fusion and a $50,000 plus Lincoln MKZ, for just one example. I’m I wrong?
I agree: Luxury has been so “democratized” by now, with yesterday’s gimmicks becoming today’s std. equipment, there’s little point to luxury brands anymore besides vanity. I imagine product planners racking their brains over what new features they should offer to justify outrageous price premiums over plebian equivalents.
There is more of a trim difference, there is more refinement etc. It depends on what you want, however. Also, back in ’79, a Fairmont would not be a fair comparison to a Continental as the Fairmont was a “compact” and the Continental was the big flagship.. The Ford Galaxie/LTD was much closer in size but for 79 the LTD went on the Panther platform while 79 was the last year for the big 70s Continental. However, it would join its lesser brethren on the Panther the following year.
Personally, I think the Lincolns look better than their Ford equivalents, especially the interiors. Mercurys used to be good FoMoCo Olds/Buick equivalents in the near luxury market. Its been that way for a long time. The problem now is people seem to see Caddys and Lincolns as “near luxury” and the Bimmers and Benzes as “real luxury”. Compound that with all the people who have the money but not the style. I don’t think it’s as much of a “thing” anymore to have a status symbol. I know you can’t universalise a personal observation, but I know too many doctors and lawyers (with student debt under control and paid down) who still drive their old med school Camry with almost 200k on it. Boggles my mind, but it’s there.
GM’s various brands crapped all over the Sloan ladder for a while too. Too many stripper 88s and LeSabres that should have been Caprice sales, not to mention all the penalty boxes badge engineered under those once august names that should have been Chevys too.
A good friend of mine’s Dad, retired Chairman of the Board of a bank had Lincolns all of his life. He passed away recently. His last ride, a fully equipped Ford Taurus which he claimed was the equivalent of his past Lincolns in terms of equipment and comfort.
Yet as soon as 1982, the humble Fox evolved into the Lincoln Continental. In turn, the mainstream Taurus took its place. Luxury brands are all about exclusivity, but by this time it could only be maintained superficially in trim & features, particularly at Ford.
Lots of folks would tell you that the problem was the Impala and the Caprice encroaching on the bottom of the Buick and Olds lines, not the other way around. Buick and Olds were created first, for those market positions.
The traditional US luxury and near-luxury buyers mostly are buying SUVs and half ton crew cabs. An F150 King Ranch short box starts over $50K and often goes well over $60k.
In my opinion, the Fusion is in the same slot as a Fairmont in 79, so I think my comparison still stands, irrespective of the physical size difference between the two cars in 79. Today a MKZ is barely larger ( if at all) than a Fusion. Which goes even further to prove my point.
A better comparison would be a Ford Granada/Lincoln Versailles to a Ford Fusion/Lincoln MKZ. Ford LTD-Gallaxie/Lincoln Continental to Ford Taurus/Lincoln MKS. Plus the Thunderbird/Mk. V but there is no real modern equivalent.
You could always get a big Ford that was fairly close to the big Lincoln. Or, later on a smaller Lincoln based on a smaller Ford. Same with GM.
My point was, back in the 70s you could get a big Ford and load it up to approach a stripper Lincoln (same with GM) just like you can do today.
The market mix for Ford in 79 doesn’t say much of anything, because they were stuck with a hodgepodge of old stuff and new stuff. The only cars they’d actually replaced were the Ford/Merc full size cars and the Mustang II.
By 1981, they’d cleaned up their product line with a small FWD hatchback, various Fox derivatives, and a unified family of big Fords/Mercs/Lincolns, which was the product line they were planning while the 1979 cars actually were selling.
Most of them didn’t sell very well in a terrible market, but the 1981 product line made sense on paper.
I see todays Ford line up as
Fiesta-Pinto
Focus-Fairmont
Fusion-Granada
Taurus-LTD
Lincoln- The Luxury Brand.
And since nowadays the Lincoln is no bigger or better equipped ( or is it?) than the lesser models (unlike 1979) it has no place in the line up. Ford would be better off to cancel all their efforts with it and put those resources into the bread and butter line.
Guy, I think it wouldn’t be unreasonable to nominate the 80s FWD Continental as a Ford Deadly Sin: engines, transmissions, air suspension problems all wrapped up in a super sized Taurus. And without the distinctiveness of Ford’s mid size best seller.
I agree completly. They were junk.
There is more wood trim, better materials, more attention to sound proofing and ride. Sure, Ford could just make a Super Platinum line of Ford models, but they’d still be Fords and the people who would have bought a Lincoln would probably go Buick or Lexus rather that get a Ford badged fancy car.
Your probably right. Although dropping Mercury didn’t seem to hurt them. It can’t be profit though since all that comes from trucks now. And is the “attention to details etc., etc.” worth the extra 15 or 20 thousand per?
Mercury had been confused for so long, that wasn’t surprising. They made pickups at one point, then tried to be junior Lincolns then just went to being a Ford with a different look aside from the Grand Marquis which stayed junior Lincoln, though the Towncar was going out to pasture at that point anyway. They were no longer a really convincing near luxury marque.
Kind of like Oldsmobile and Buick. Olds got the axe probably just because Buick had the Chinese market.
The Fiesta is pretty much the Fiesta — it’s one of the only Ford nameplates that’s remained unchanged over the past 40 years.
I’ve commented on other Seville posts, but I love this shape. As a kid in rural New Zealand in the early 1980s, someone had one of these (it would have been a private import as Cadillacs weren’t available new then), and being the sole modern (at the time) American car (there were a few private-import Chev/Ford pick-ups though) in town, I used to swoon whenever the Seville was parked curbside when I was walking home from school.
Even today I find the shape to be distinctive and attractive, and quite preferable to the bustle-backed Fox-platform Lincoln Continental. Having said that though, from Paul’s evidence it’s quite clear that the Seville was a Deadly Sin. In my eyes it is due to poor engine options – how is it possible for 368 cubic inches to make only 145hp?. But when a car looks as unusual and good as the Seville does to me, I’d be tempted to dally with the dark side!
The bustle back style/design was not uncommon in the mid to late 1930’s. The most stylish versions are Hooper body Rolls Royces, but even Pontiac’s had a bustle back.
When I fist saw the 80 Seville I liked it. However, with the passage of time, and seeing them on the roads, I began to see that the front end did not really fit the rear end of the cars. The bustle back really works best on cars that have distinctive front and rear fenders.
The real problem though is that the 80 Seville is not the style to keep Cadillac owners away from the Mercedes showroom.
My old man had both the Olds Diesel and the 8-6-4 engine; one in a 98 Olds, the other in a Fleetwood.
The 8-6-4 engine was ok, provided you had an electrical mod done to always make it run in 8. Otherwise smoothness was not a word I would use to describe the sensation of the engine changing modes.
The diesel engine, on the other hand, only got 60k miles before it went. But it did pull an amazing 30mpg on the highway which was considered amazing back then. He had the diesel engine replaced with a gas one, and then the transmission went.
After that we started buying Nissans.
Ugly then, ugly now. Never spoke to me, rather it shouted “Run the other way!”
It never ceases to amaze me how a significant number of Americans will buy American cars just because they are American – no matter if they fall apart once you tur the ignition if you haven’t gotten eye cancer from looking at them.
I guess it is easy to point your finger, so in those Americans defense I would have to say that Germans have started to buy mostly overpriced incredibly ugly German cars as well just for the fact that they are German (tho it is true that that get huge tax incentives by the government to buy those cars in order to subsidize the local automotive industry).
In any case, the world would be a better place if everyone would just drive Camrys and Corollas but the we wouldn’t need curbsideclassic.com and that would be a shame.
I read about a poll over a decade ago that Germans considered the MB the most desirable car, but they also rated it as the worst ownership experience.
Have any 350 diesel-powered Seville’s surfaced since this article was written?
I’ve seen a handful of early and late model Seville diesels advertised or at auction, usually the auction prices are high. Fans of the diesel are willing to pay a good price. I own three Seville diesels, two are rescue cars not running and the 83 runs excellent with 147,000 miles.
Interesting article. I purchased a 1984 Seville in 2000. for $4000 including taxes. it had low mileage and was sold in perfect mechanical condition as was the outside. we found the ride to be comfortable and smooth. As you mentioned, I grew up thinking negatively of the Cadillac – I always considered it to be for 60 year olds. So at 30, I was not the natural demographic. The car only required normal maintenance (perhaps due to our mechanic) I have since been completely enthused about the Cadillac. BTW, I adored the back – the front not so much. I loved that car.
“A remarkable investment, though; at least until it’s time to trade it in. Remarkable depreciation.” LOL nicely written. The photo following that line is of the interior. Look at that! They keep a copy of Machinery’s Handbook under the arm rest as a prop because it sagged so much! Plus it’s a handy on board tool for those much needed roadside repairs.
My first encounter with one of these was along a stretch of three lane wide highway. As it merged in, I just about lost it looking at those odd geometries. The front as square as my K car, the rear as curved as a Beetle. I couldn’t fathom ever dumping one of those in my driveway. They didn’t seem to take long to become very sparse on the roads. The 8-6-4 engine may have been the culprit, or corrosion, at least around here. My eyes would still hurt if I saw one today.
History lesson required Ford got a flathead V8 in 32 only 15 years after Chevrolet had a one year V8
Such a truly UGLY car!
It’s an interesting phenomena, how styling is viewed by different people. I’ve always found the 80-85 Seville absolutely gorgeous, and yet yes there are individuals who despise the look. Almost a parallel to folks with different political persuasions. Of course GM styling and management must have loved the look of the Seville or it wouldn’t have been built.
I re-watched Raising Arizona last week.
I noticed that Leonard Smalls, the Lone Biker of the Apocalypse, rides up the back of a Seville and uses it as a jump ramp.
The 10-year-old in me wanted to try it, but luckily there are none around.
Wayne Kady said this uses the same hood as the Eldorado, so for the first couple of years, they put a chrome cap on the power dome that connected to the center strip to make it look different. This one has the dechromed dash of the ’84-85 model years. The bulging fake wire wheels on 95% of them were the most objectionable part to me, aside from fake convertible tops.
These Sevilles were hideous. Eons ago, I recall a young girl driving her parent’s Seville very proudly. She stopped by us, waiting for someone at a shopping center. My friend say to her through her rolled down window: “hey Tootsie… what happened to the rest of your car.”
Pretty well summed it up.
Back when these were a somewhat common sight on the roads, I thought these looked like an old man’s car and the back looked particularly unfortunate. Now compared to modern overwrought styling trends, it doesn’t look that bad.
Tootsie? That term sounds older than the people who bought these cars new. Was she dressed like a beatnik, waiting by the five and dime down the street from the drive in theater?
The bustleback looked goofy when RR came out with it. But RR was RR and didn’t play by the rules, they of course were RR. End of story. The big Rollers were never about competitive market, they were what they were, they claimed they were the best, and you either had the money and bought in to it, or you didn’t. You didn’t complain about styling because RR was RR, kind of a love it or leave it. And enough loved it that they made money.
Cadillac on the other hand, was in a competitive market, so an ugly car was just an ugly car, not something like a Rolls Royce. And to my eyes, the Cad bustleback is an ugly car, a very ugly one. Coyote ugly one.
I can appreciate the bustleback Seville as a piece of automotive sculpture (although the simcon top completely ruins it, even more than it would a conventional 3-box shape), but surely someone at GM realized it would kill the “import intender” appeal of the gen 1 stone dead. The gen 2 Seville appealed to absolutely nobody who wouldn’t have bought a DeVille, Eldorado or Fleetwood if Cadillac had modeled it after more contemporary European competitors, and it attracted for all intents and purposes absolutely no one to the Cadillac brand.
The first gen Seville was a bolder product, but the interior was a let down. No gauges, no buckets or console. The second gen was a bit better inside, it was roomier. I like the bustle back, but then I had a boat tail Riviera at one time! I bought a ’94 Seville STS and I thought that it was a beautiful design, It was so sleek the design team referred to it as the greyhound. The interior was a complete break from the “chrome box” interiors of earlier Cadillacs. The NorthStar V8 was terrific, even when coupled to FWD.
Looking at current Cadillacs they have a very strong shared design language, very recognizable as being a Cadillac. The Escalade looks like a locomotive set free on the highway, it’s a bold design that says Cadillac in no uncertain terms. Even the ATS captures that vibe on a smaller scale. Lincoln has done poorly with their sedans, they looked too much like the Fords they were derived from. Even the Continental was disappointing. I think Lincoln has done much better with their SUVs, even if they are just smaller versions of the Navigator, they all look good to me. I just bought a well kept, low mileage, 2005 Navigator and now I can see what the attraction is with these big luxury SUVs.
It really reminds me of the big Cadillacs of the ’50’s and 60’s, as well as the ’60’s Lincoln sedans that I’ve owned in the past. It’s a real Lincoln, not a poser like an MKZ. It’s not trying to be a Beemer or Benz. Besides Escalades, I see a lot of CTS’ which is the volume model. I don’t know if buyers will go back to sedans, the CT6 looked like a great car, much better than the Continental, but it couldn’t find any success.
.