(first posted 8/17/2015) The third-generation (1986-91) Cadillac Seville is seemingly remembered only for one thing, which ironically is just how unmemorable it was. Sadly, the 1980s were not kind to GM’s luxury marque and Seville 3 represented the confusion typical of the time. Almost forgotten today, the third generation of Cadillac’s ostensible import fighter was a concerted improvement over its predecessor but also showed that often a wrapper is just as important as what is inside.
Seville sales nosedived with the 1986 revision, tumbling by 55%. Despite the previous generation’s eccentric styling and disastrous run of engines, including the V8-6-4 and the Oldsmobile diesel, sales had picked up towards the end. It must have alarmed Cadillac to release a much improved new model and yet be met with stunned silence from consumers.
A lot of it comes down to that wrapper. GM had painted themselves into a corner by applying the “Sheer Look” – first seen on the inaugural Seville – across its entire lineup. By the mid-1980s, the GM fleet all suffered from me-too styling and no division was more affected by this than Cadillac. The mini-Cadillac styling that had helped sell 1980 Buick Century sedans was now slowing sales of Cadillacs.
Irv Rybicki, GM’s then Director of Design, said a conscious effort had been made to retain familiar GM design themes with the downsized Cadillacs of the 1980s. The idea was to not alienate traditional buyers as dimensions and engines shrunk, which was a sound principle. After all, one could imagine how traditional Cadillac buyers may have reacted if they saw a new Fleetwood that was both smaller and with radically different styling.
Rybicki’s design strategy ignored two key factors, though. Firstly, the entire GM model lineup was following a very similar design theme (formal rooflines, clean sides) as Cadillac. Secondly, while retaining existing design cues would help retain existing buyers, it was certainly not guaranteed to bring new buyers into the fold. Cadillac consumers had been skewing older and less educated than the industry average, with a falling median income, and the division could have used some fresh blood.
1986-87 Seville
Smaller dimensions didn’t help the designers. The Seville shrunk 16 inches (6 in the wheelbase alone) and now rode the GM K-Body, effectively a sedan version of the E-Body platform used for the Cadillac Eldorado, Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile Toronado. Length was now 190.8 inches, with a wheelbase of 108 inches; both measurements were within a couple of inches of the W124 Mercedes. Cadillac’s traditional design cues were less suited to these dimensions, and the result was dinged by many for being both derivative and awkward. Allegedly, GM executives had also instructed the designers to make the car look as compact as possible. Perhaps if the rest of GM’s lineup didn’t look so similar, the design may have been better received. After all, the W124 Mercedes incorporated a lot of heritage design cues such as ribbed taillights and the typical, big Mercedes radiator shell. It did have better proportions though, thanks to its RWD layout.
The reduction in size did reduce curb weight by 300 lbs, which in turn improved fuel economy to 17/26 mpg. In comparison, a 300E auto’s gas mileage was 18/22 mpg but it had superior performance. Even the Acura Legend’s smaller V6 had better performance numbers and almost identical fuel economy.
Where the new Seville hadn’t improved over its predecessor was in the engine compartment. The sole engine was the HT-4100, Cadillac’s much ballyhooed V8 engine comprising an aluminum block, iron cylinder heads, pushrods and electronic throttle-body fuel injection. For the new Seville, the engine was mounted transversely. While the 4.1 V8 had sufficient low-end torque (200 ft-lbs, at a low 2200 rpm), it quickly ran out of steam and 0-60 was accomplished in a mediocre 12.5 seconds. That performance should have come as no surprise, as the engine actually had less power than the Riviera and Toronado’s 3.8 V6 (130 hp vs. 150 hp). This was the first Seville to not offer the option of a diesel; the troublesome oiler was banished. However, the HT-4100 was scarcely more reliable.
Like its predecessor, the new Seville had a very modern suspension setup with an independent, self-levelling rear suspension. The rear setup incorporated control arms, an anti-roll bar and transverse leaf springs; front suspension utilized struts and coil springs. A touring suspension option was offered with larger front and rear anti-roll bars and standard 215/60R-15 Goodyear Eagle GTs. The steering was now a rack-and-pinion unit.
While front-wheel-drive was generally seen as being conducive to good packaging, the Seville’s interior had several notable flaws. Visibility was poor due to the upright, formal roofline with and small rear window. The rear of the cabin was less comfortable than rivals’, with mediocre rear legroom and a low, short bench. Seats were designed to be low and quite thin, to help enhance the appearance of spaciousness.
The dashboard was neat but very blocky, looking superficially similar to many other contemporary GM products. However, Sevilles did come with various clever features like retained accessory power, something not common at the time. There was also an electronic driver information center and GM’s “Twilight Sentinel” automatic lighting.
By generation three, Cadillac had seen the rising popularity of German sport sedans and had attempted to target them with the touring suspension offering, which Car & Driver discovered to have handling that bested the Mercedes 300E. (Yes, Cadillac had introduced a similar option towards the end of generation 2 but it was unimpressive and sold poorly.) Steering feel was still somewhat numb, but the Seville’s cabin was serene and bereft of noise and the 4-speed automatic transmission was one of GM’s superb, smooth-shifting units, mounted on the floor.
But what was the Seville’s role in the Cadillac lineup? Originally the most expensive and smallest Cadillac and launched to stem the tide of buyers to German brands, the second-generation switched to a modern FWD platform clothed in bizarre neoclassical styling which was most definitely not what import buyers were after. The Seville was smaller than the Deville, and yet was priced similarly (and generally slightly higher). But while such unorthodox positioning had worked for the first Seville, which was strikingly different from the contemporary Deville, Cadillac now had two sedan lines with the same engine and similar styling. If the Deville was targeted at traditional Cadillac consumers, then who was the Seville’s target market? With the demise of the Cimarron, quietly retired for 1988, Cadillac had lost its youngest-skewing model. That Cadillac insisted on taking the next most youthful line and continuing to offer it in a cushy, luxury-spec trim was baffling, and Cadillac stuck with this dual model strategy until the Seville name disappeared in the 2000s. The Seville should have burnished Cadillac’s fledgling sport sedan cred, but Cadillac shot it in the foot. Not all luxury import buyers were after a firm ride – note the success of the Lexus LS – but Cadillac had the Deville for those buyers.
The Seville at launch did undercut its German rivals (a 300E was priced $11k higher), but the real threat to the American came from Japan. Acura’s new, modern-looking Legend was a whopping $8k cheaper. The Japanese had entered the luxury arena with a vengeance and it didn’t stop with Acura. Lexus and Infiniti arrived in 1990, offering often superior dynamics and reliability as well as keen pricing.
GM did react quite quickly to poor sales of the new Seville and related Eldorado coupe. The latter received various styling tweaks to increase its visual bulk, although the Seville’s visual changes in 1988 were much more minor with a new hood and a more protruding, angular grille. More importantly, the Seville was injected with a much-needed shot of adrenalin in the form of a bigger 4.5 V8. Power was up to 155 hp and torque to 240 ft-lbs. For the first time, Seville’s 0-60 was under 10 seconds with a 9.5 second time.
Even bigger news was the 1988 arrival of the STS (Seville Touring Sedan), Cadillac’s most relevant Seville yet. The exterior of the STS featured less chrome, attractive 15-inch alloy wheels and a grille-mounted Cadillac badge, while underneath the STS featured the upgraded touring suspension. It wasn’t quite as dynamic as some of its German rivals, but the STS had a firm, controlled yet comfortable and well-damped ride. Teves anti-lock brakes were standard, as were the Goodyear Eagle GT tires from the old touring suspension package. The STS could do 0.81g on the skidpad while still offering the kind of highway comfort that Cadillacs were renowned for.
The interior was also much improved with the addition of burled elm trim on the dash and doors, and supple leather. Unfortunately, the instruments were still digital and the seats lacked bolstering. Cadillac was getting more ambitious with pricing, and the STS was priced at just under $35,000 (the base Seville retailed for just under $30k). By 1990, though, the Lexus LS400 and Infiniti Q45 had both launched. The former was priced lineball with the STS and featured more modern styling inside and out, and the latter had a fiery 270 hp, 4.5 V8 and sporty handling.
The previously sluggish third-generation Seville received two more boosts in power in its lifetime. Multi-port fuel injection was added in 1990, upping horsepower to 180; previous Sevilles had throttle-body fuel injection. And even though a beautiful new Seville was arriving for 1992 and a new Cadillac-exclusive V8 engine the following year, 1991 Sevilles received a bigger 4.9 V8 with an even 200 horsepower and 275 ft-lbs.
The changes had helped boost Seville sales slightly; the 1988 tally sat at 21,469, an increase of just over 2,000 units from its debut year. For 1990, sales would reach a high of 31,235, which was relatively impressive given the car’s age and lack of significant visual changes. STS sales had started at 1,499 units in 1988, but they too reached a high for 1990 of 2,811 units. Seville sales would dip slightly for the third generation’s swansong year but still sat comfortably ahead of 1986-89 figures.
Although Seville sales had improved, the car was not exactly profitable for GM. A new factory had been built in Hamtramck, Michigan to manufacture the Seville and the related GM E-Body coupes. The $500 million factory was to be GM’s industrial showcase and was heralded as being the most modern automotive factory in the world, featuring state-of-the-art robotic machinery. It soon became known as a giant money pit: machinery malfunctioned and the workers lacked the necessary expertise to work with these expensive new robots. The GM leadership had bungled the Hamtramck endeavor, presuming the new machinery would work instantaneously and work within existing operating rhythms. Two years after its opening, a Hamtramck-produced car took 100 hours of labor to manufacture, five times as much as it took for Toyota to build a car. Maintenance and repair costs had also skyrocketed. Roger Smith’s grand vision of GM becoming a “21st century corporation” was marked by failures like this, and the red ink began to pool.
Furthermore, Car & Driver observed that Cadillac had a marketing department with just a handful of staff. Restructuring had also left GM’s luxury marque under the purview of a combined Buick-Oldsmobile-Cadillac division, leaving Cadillac with little autonomy. The Seville/Eldorado did receive differentiation from their platform-mates in the form of V8 engines, but was a Seville worth $6k more than a Toronado?
The sport sedan was fast becoming the car of the 1980s. From the beginning, the Seville should have come only with the touring suspension. Wire wheels and vinyl tops should have been left on the DeVille and Fleetwood. The first Seville had been built to battle the Germans. The second Seville may have lost the plot, but Cadillac should have come out guns a-blazin’ with Seville 3.
When the third-generation had been developed, there was an ever-present fear that gas prices would continue to rise. To GM’s credit, they had reduced the Seville to international dimensions while still offering very domestic traits like a smooth V8 with nice low-end torque and an excellent automatic transmission. Perhaps if gas prices had risen, this generation would have been better received.
However, there were still too many issues with Seville 3. Packaging was subpar. The HT-4100’s numbers were lackluster. Positioning was confused. Styling was just too close to the rest of the GM fleet. Cadillac did eventually claw back some ground with stronger engines and a competitive STS model, but they had lost crucial momentum with the third-generation Seville and they really needed a hit after such a dismal start to the decade. For the next generation, they took on board the feedback on Seville 3’s wrapper and consumers would see a much shapelier (and much more successful) Seville.
Special thanks to Jason Shafer for providing me with these wonderful photos of a 1990 Seville he saw for sale. Jason graciously supplied these photos when I told him of my woes with finding an 86-91 Seville to photograph while I was in California. I saw several, but always when I had no way of taking a photo. Also, special thanks to Brandon Gloster for the picture of the 1986-87 Seville experiencing mechanical distress in Washington Heights.
Related Reading:
CC 1986-1991 Cadillac Seville: GM’s Deadly Sin #21 PN
My Seville Series – 1992-1997 – 1998-2004 – 2005-11 STS
Its an ugly car for a luxury brand it seems like the designers began at the front and by the time they got to the C pillar just lost interest and lopped off the roof with no thought to the aesthetics, it may be well finished and equipped but as an owner you would see the awfull rear quarter every time you walked up to it to get in, a luxury car should look like a luxury car not a spare parts after thought.
+1 it looks like it came out of a chop shop, the back looks like it came off another car.
To my eyes it looks ‘flayed’, like an anatomy diagram. The body shop has taken off the outer panels and left only the wheel wells and inner unibody. Not a luxury look.
Not only unattractive and malproportioned, but also a dead-ringer for the low-buck GM N-body sedans (Calais, Skylark, Grand Am) introduced a year earlier.
When I was younger and had just started to pay attention to cars, these things were only a decade old or so. I always thought who would want a Cadillac that looks just like a Grand Am? Same with the Eldos of that generation, though not as bad because of the Caddy tail lights.
A few manufacturers have made a flagship model look too much like the cooking version,the Chrysler Maserati, this and over here the 3 litre Austin which looked like a giant Land Crab
Agree. It’s horrendously, unbelievably ugly. It makes me wonder what qualifications Rybicki had for the top styling job, if he let this loose on the American roads. Did he ever design anything attractive? I’m mentally recalling US GM designs from this period, but I can’t think of anything…..
It looks like a dual-cab short-bed pickup with a hard tonneau cover. That’s the problem.
I remember seeing this in Car and Driver when it came out. I knew American GM sedans were under Rybicki were ugly and weird, but this was just unbelievable.
The proportions are all up the creek. Too much overhang at the front, not enough overhang at the rear (You’re not designing a Corolla, guys!) and that weird GM-specific whacked-off roofline. ANYONE could have told them it looked wrong. Surely someone must have spoken out before this hit the production lines? Were they all afraid of the boss? Didn’t they clinic the styling before committing to the tooling? The pic of that Legend shows what they could have done.
The ugliest Cadillac ever.
Update – I see I said much the same thing four months ago!
And that’s always been my problem with this car. The front of the ’86-’88 is okay, and it improves markedly with ’89’s peaked grille and relocated indicators, to where it’s an attractive expression of Cadillac styling themes of the time. And then you get to the C-pillar. Good lord, what were they thinking?? The roofline just…stops. In that awkward, thin pillar, that meets the rear deck at an arbitrary point higher up than the front fenders, at almost a 90 degree angle. And the skinny C-pillar occurs way too far forward in regard to the rear wheels. It just looks oh so awkward.
The N-body sedans looked way too much like this in basic shape, *and* they were actually better proportioned. Double whammy.
These little Cadillacs are forgettable, however the 1989-1991 Seville STS was a handsome car packed with V8 that looked like a expensive little luxury car. Sure not even close to the mighty E-Class, BMW 5-Series, Jaguar of the same time.
However, the overall execution was a good first attempt for Caddy to go towards. the 1989-1991 STS laid the framework to change directions from appealing to 60 year old plus demographic to a younger buyer. look at where Cadillac is now with its sport performance V-series division, good looks, and even beating the competition in 2016. Excluding the fake Cimmaron D’Oro Sport, that many do not even count as a real Cadillac. The STS was the official first attempt to go at the Euro market. If only this car was say a few inches wider, longer. taller-better dashboard layout-lose the digital speedometer, and about 20 more HP. I think it could have been a true winner, because it for sure had the good looks (STS trim only). This car was actually a good matchup to the Acura Legend at the time-similar in size.
I remember seeing a few as a teen and thought they looked very expensive for the day when new.
I didn’t like the new Sevilles when I went to the ’86 Autoshow in Los Angeles. Frankly, the whole Cadillac lineup looked bazaar. However now, in hindsight, they were actually quite subdued (for a Cadillac) and almost handsome.
What’s weird is what happened to all of them. I NEVER have seen one on the road since 2015. Are people collecting them or did they all get crushed at the junkyard?
‘Catfish Steaks and a Ghost’ – that’s what I call eating out
If you look at the ’90-’91 Sevilles, they don’t appear to me nearly as nose-heavy due to the front spoiler that had been moved back toward the front wheels, which somehow gave the car a more balanced look. In addition, the ’90-’91s also are a biit over an inch wider.
Check out the ’90-’91s and you’ll see a more conventional and handsome car.
Another glorious eccentric US auto. I’d tip these to be supercool one day – bags of power and a very classy silhouette. You could turn up anywhere in one of these and not look like an idiot – fantastic piece of design.
This reminds me of the Gremlin; an acceptable front end marred by a severely truncated rear. In this case its even more of a shame because I find the front end quite attractive.
I know I post this frequently but it really sums up the key reason for the failure of these cars…….
I remember that ad, and what it conveniently fails to mention is that you could still buy a fullsize RWD Fleetwood from Cadillac that matched the Town Car.
Yes, but it was still infected with the HT4100 which, on top of its’ durability issues, wasn’t enough engine for a big B-body. The Town Car was no rocket with its’ 302 but it was reliable, and a corporate engine which meant a fleet operator could run Crown Vic taxis, Econoline vans and Town Car limos and black cars and keep one set of service parts on hand.
The problem was that even Cadillac seemed reluctant to admit that the Fleetwood still existed during these years.
In one of Thomas Bonsall’s books, he mentions the difficulty of getting a new Fleetwood for testing in the late 1980s. Cadillac’s Public Relations Department was reluctant to provide him with one. It was as though they didn’t want to admit that Cadillac still sold such a car.
He finally was able to get one – from Lincoln. The division had one on hand to compare to the Town Car. It finally agreed to lend it to Mr. Bonsall for a test drive.
Yes, this proved the point of the problem with “cookie-cutter” styling back then!
While that’s universally regarded as a very effective commercial, I do wonder why they didn’t give more screen time to showing the Buick, Olds, and Cadillac’s nearly identical side profiles which would have driven home the message even better. (The concurrent print ads did show this IIRC).
This car’s main rival being the Continental, one also realizes how much better they *could* have done with a more focused and better-styled Seville. These were not the Continental’s best years either–for ’86 and ’87, the Continental still had a semi-neoclassical tail design of its own, which I like but which was behind the prevailing market trends by the mid 80’s. At least it was still RWD/V8. Then along came the new Continental for ’88, which had modern aero styling (if a bit anonymous) but was now V6-only as under the skin it was basically a LWB Taurus with air suspension. And the V6 in question, the only engine offered, was Ford’s infamous head gasket-eating 3.8, which is probably why that generation of Continental is basically extinct on the street today.
I remember when the 1986 Cadillac Seville first hit the market. I was less than impressed with its styling. I thought its predecessor, the “bustle-back” Seville was more attractive.
Definitely.
After Gen 1, this generation was my favorite styled Seville, especially towards the end of the run. I guess I was one of the few able to discern the slight nuances that immediate;y identified it as a Seville. Especially the side design, with it’s “coach on wagon wheels” theme, made perfect sense as the top of the Cadillac food chain.
But yes the interior needed a complete redesign, away from the the GM cubism period – they should have followed the Germans on this – two large dials, minimum ginger bread. This dash could have come out of the mid-70’s with it’s garishness.
I agree – all models needed the sports suspension.
The 3rd-gen Seville did have a dash that seemed cribbed from a Benz.
4th-gen I meant – the ’90s Seville)
“coach on wagon wheels”. You know, that’s a rather good analogy, especially for the later cars with 16″ wheels.
I still don’t like them, but I can see it.
Agreed Dave M. Glad to know I’m not the only one who admires this crisp, understated design.
Thank you for the positive 3rd Gen Seville observations. I agree that after the ‘76-‘80 Sevilles this edition was my favorite. “Coach on wagon wheels”. I love that.
Thanks for this writeup William. You were able to point out the cars good and bad points in a way that some here would not. The STS gets most of the what little good press there was on these but most of those that stepped up and bought the car got the ones with the traditional trim.
I would be very curious if anyone had experience with both the early wildly successful late seventies ones and these. Where were they better, where worse. Most of the reviews are written by people who visibly hate even the idea of these, so in my mind their opinions are suspect.
I think William makes a great point that the engines had not improved enough yet for the early versions of this generation, even though I bet it was a fight to keep the V8. This of course was a common problem at the end of the malaise era. Even the Legend needed to raise displacement quickly to improve low end torque that the original lacked and also the W124 took a lot of time to go back to twin cam in the USA. Volvo also had work to do around then to improve their V6.
It is right to complain that these cars could have been better. The idea that they should be more like Mercedes or the Acura Legend is wrong. In every generation since, Cadillac has tried to make their cars more European. Sales of course stayed down. To have sold your soul and got nothing. Imagine if they actually believed they were the standard of the world.
“You were able to point out the cars good and bad points in a way that some here would not. ”
Totally agree – and I’m one of the guilty parties.
This is one of the few GM cars that I really liked back in the ’80’s. I always found it attractive, but of course it was well beyond my price range when new, and when it became affordable used there was the E30 BMW . . . . . .
Which means I always admired them from afar, as was certainly no help to The General’s situation.
Someday, I’d love to see an article chronicling and adding up Roger Smith’s bungles. Even my father hated that guy, and he was a pure GM and anti-any kind of import a person as you could get.
I think Michael Moore filmed that already about Roger Smith. Perhaps it was a little too much throwing stones from glass houses.
Great thorough article Will! There’s so much that can be said about this car, but I guess the best thing I can say is that the ’86-’91 Seville was thoroughly botched.
That being said, there is some appealing quality about it. I can’t pinpoint what that quality is but there’s something there.
I did always like the later STS version with upgraded leather and a rear console. One thing that always struck me as odd is that a front center armrest was not standard. The first interior pic demonstrates this.
The Gen2 Seville was a disaster — styled completely different than Gen1, ruining any hope for carryover sales and pricing momentum. Have to wonder if the Gen1 were retained for a couple additional years with a refresh and something along the lines of Gen3 were to have instead been launched in the early 1980’s as Gen2 instead . . .would the sales and brand outcome have been any different?
I don’t think coming out earlier with this style would have helped. With even less power and more mechanical troubles, the drive would have been worse. Also not gone over much in this article was how advanced the electronics were in these. Given that, they really would not have been ready earlier.
The gen 2 was a career homage to Bill Mitchell, at the time of his retirement. By using some 30s styling cues, it was a way to say that he will be up there with the styling greats of his youth. I think 35 years later it is safe to say Mr. Mtchell’s rep is up there with the best. I respect that GM thought enough of Mitchell to give him such an important model as such a boldly styled homage. Surprisingly enough, it sold pretty well, even if the Seville was sent off track
Correct — for a car manufacturer to permit such an important model like the 1975-1979 Seville that was a commercial success as a higher price moderately sized Cadillac offering go back in time to adopt a version of the originally not selected style element as Gen2 for the sake any employee and his legacy . . . shows poor judgement and an extreme internal focus . . . my Grandparents had a 1978 or 1979 Seville . . . loyal GM customers and loved it . . . never considered a Gen2 or any subsequent Seville . . . due to the design.
Well said Derek. We had a ’78 and switched to Volvo in the 80s due to rear wheel drive, and much more advanced design, especially in safety.
The problem comes where the alternative is just to do some half assed aping of an Audi 5000 or some-such. German cars develop a following based on their unique attributes, most of which developed over a long time due to conditions in the home country. Same for France, UK, France, Italy, or to a lesser degree Japan, who was more export oriented.
Simplistic people here or elsewhere sneer at whitewall tires for example and say the Germans wouldn’t have done that as if that was some final determinant of taste. Fiddlestix!
A well developed, high quality uniquely American Cadillac Seville was what GM needed then and now. Too bad that GM doesn’t know what that would be. Too bad for all of us.
Customers who want an old-school American luxury vehicle have a choice today. It’s called the Escalade, and Cadillac has been selling them as fast as GM can make them.
“A well developed, high quality uniquely American Cadillac Seville was what GM needed then and now. Too bad that GM doesn’t know what that would be. Too bad for all of us.”
Couldn’t have said it any better than that! In the mid-eighties it seemed like GM was always trying to be something it wasn’t. Was it too soon, too fast, maybe too radical of a departure from what consumers were used to? I think if the second gen Seville had actually been slightly bigger – wider – it would have been a great seller. It was simply too small and looked too much like any other run of the mill GM car.
They had the STS just a few years ago. It looked like a bloated CTS. I thought about getting one but not with a V6 and the Northstar is not a good long term engine. The Chrysler 300 is more what I like now.
I agree that Gen2 is what really derailed the Seville. Whether this Gen3 car could have/should have come earlier, as a modified X-body, is an interesting thought. The original Seville set the pace for GM’s style though the rest of the 1970s, with Cadillac as the leader–the rightful place for the flagship division and the strategy successfully deployed by The General for years. Likewise, the Gen3 car appearing in 1980, would have established, not followed, the look of GM’s mid-80s FWD designs. That alone would have helped. At least the Gen3 car boasted some features, like the “limousine style” doors that wrapped into the roof and the quasi-aerodynamic nose that were hallmarks of 1980s car design. By 1986 these looks were already too familiar, but in 1980 they would have been bold.
As for the Gen2 Seville, if that car had been positioned as a low volume, over-the-top homage to the classic era, and branded something else (Biarritz perhaps?), it wouldn’t have inflicted so much damage to the brand. The original Seville’s success was based on its American interpretation of “international” size and positioning (right in line with where luxury consumers’ tastes were evolving) and Cadillac was incredibly foolish to throw that away.
I drove a rented 1988 Seville for a few days back in the time, and I remember it actually being a fairly pleasant car to drive. It was smooth, fairly torquey for the time, and the handling was decent. Too bad that it looked like an Olds Calais with a few extra chromey bits and the dashboard was a no-info electronic affair.
Sorry they did not give you an Accord, I understand most of them have tachometers and handle well.
My daily driver at the time was a 1984 CRX 1.5, so I was well aware of Honda’s virtues – handling, tachometer, and all.
Imagine the Caddy owner renting the CRX. Has Honda even heard of sound deadening or suspension travel? They might like the suddenly truncated rear though.
“Too bad that it looked like an Olds Calais…”
I think this is the main reason for its lack of success. It resembled the Calais/Somerset/Grand Am too much. And resembling cheaper Cadillacs did it no favors, either.
Kind of a Lincoln Versailles/Ford Granada or Cavalier/Cimarron thing.
That’s exactly why it needed to be bigger. Resembling the cheaper GM offerings was a failure waiting to happen. Look at the ’89-’93 deVilles – by stretching them and making them look distinctive – like Cadillacs of the past – it made them a huge success.
My father owned a 1990 Coupe deVille and loved it. If you analyze the situation, the interior really didn’t change at all from when they were first introduced in 1985 – but the exterior styling was now pure Cadillac. That’s what the owners of a Cadillac wanted – to have a car they could be proud of.
Wonderful article, you’ve done this car justice.
These always seemed rather thin on the ground back in the day. However, despite its faults, this one had a very quiet and confident demeanor. Whether it was the dark blue, it’s phenomenal 44,000 mile condition, or something else I can’t say. Bryce is right about the awkward styling, but in a sense that simply kept up the theme from Gen 2.
This write up really nails it as far as what went wrong with this generation of Seville and to a smaller extent the 2nd generation as well.
As often happened when a new model was produced by a car company, by the 2nd or 3rd generation Cadillac lost sight of what the Seville was. They figured that it “boiled down” to a car for a certain price point to be bought by a certain demographic. This thinking was okay if people buying cars didn’t really care what they looked like, I guess? Which brings up the main point here: the Seville looked like any number of others cars….unfortunately, even a few were Cadillacs. Why buy a Seville when it looked like an Oldsmobile or a Buick? And with inferior performance and a higher price….the Cadillac was a poor deal.
When I see one of these on the road anymore I recognize that it’s a Cadillac, but I never know what model it is.
Agree – GM and Cadillac lost sight of the customer demographic from the Gen1 Seville. And instead focused on price point and size to the exclusion of image, features, performance, and style preferred by Baby Boomers who were entering their prime buying years and wanted a break from the full-size, highly styled land yachts Cadillac and other American car manufacturers sold in the 1960’s / 1970’s that their parents drove.
Well said. they tried to make it sporty But it still had front wheel drive. The public was not fooled.
Excellent and thorough article! It describes the tough times General Motors was going through at that time. I liked the overall looks of this Seville, but it is a shame that some other GM cars were visually t similar (such as the Olds Calais, Buick Somerset/Regal sedans and other divisions C-body sedans). Here is an odd thought: what if Cadillac continued the “bustle-back” trunk theme with this smaller package? Would that have helped achieve sales through a more unique look?
Interesting thought, but I wonder what would have happened (saleswise) if the generations had been re-shuffled so that the 3rd gen was first, and the 2nd gen was last?
But I do agree with what I think is your premise…that is there could have been a much more gradual shift in styling from the 1st to the 2nd and then the 3rd generation.
Funny you should mention this. Your comment made me remember a pic I ran across online years back, and sure enough I had it in my car pics folder. Obviously, someone else had the same thought you did and ‘created’ this.
Is it unique? yes. But, I’d say just as bad… likely worse, but… not any better.
I actually like this rendering better than what was actually put into production, but the rear end is still too stubby looking to my eye.
I think if the 1986 actually looked more like this but with a little more length added to the rear it would have sold much better.
Okay, that’s not any better than the production version. Maybe with a little more length out back it would flow better, but I don’t know how much that would help. Plus the rounded nose is a gross mismatch for the bustleback.
It’s a very interesting concept, and I’m glad someone took the time to create the image, but it doesn’t work.
Oh dear – combining the worst of the two generations! Actually this roofline would have been a huge improvement, just without the bustleback.
I have a feeling that, after the Cimarron, the shrinking of the Eldo/Seville in 1986 is probably Cadillac’s biggest regret. Think about it: their two “halo” cars reduced to…poop.
Especially considering how beautiful and unique their 1985 counterparts were.
That being said, I really wanted an STS from the 1988-1991 period.
I always thought that the ’86 Seville would have made a good Cimarron.
Good point – if this car were marketed as a new model for Cadillac, maybe calling it some catchy new name or perhaps just calling it STS – it may have sold better. As a Seville replacement, FAILURE. Same holds true for the Eldorado. Cadillac customers want a distinctive car, not a cookie cutter vehicle that looks like it could be in any other GM division.
The sad part about these cars is that they actually handled well and were efficient, comfortable and reliable (once the engines were upgraded to the 4.5 and beyond). It’s all about the marketing – and GM should have known better.
“Cadillac consumers had been skewing older and less educated than the industry average, with a falling median income…”
There’s evidence to suggest that this remains Cadillac’s primary stumbling block in the marketplace nearly 30 years later. Those who still admire the brand can’t afford a $50,000 ATS, and aspirational people will never aspire to own a Cadillac when they can lease BMWs or Benzes with far more cachet for the same money.
And there’s your problem: Cadillac has lost its cachet.
There are so many things wrong with the so-called styling on this car. I guess they believed function over form. The interior looks uninviting for a Cadillac and that thin C-pillar does not convey luxury. The earlier cars you would be afforded some privacy if you sat in the back, especially if you were being chauffeur-driven. The wheels are huge for the small body. I understand they may have technological improvements but from an aesthetic standpoint no way. I’d keep my previous generation.
Ted,
Actually, you were afforded privacy in the back seat…you were sitting on the floor!
I think the failure of this car was mostly about the way is was packaged and its looks rather then its performance. (I will be honest with you folks, with the exception of the BMW 168 HP M20B25 I6 engine and the engines in the M3, the BMW 3 series was not exactly scorching the track with its mighty 103 HP 4 cylinder engine nor was its reliability stellar . But the fact that the BMW 3 series looked different then most cars on the road in that time frame meant it sold very well. (you could not mistake the BMW 3 series for a Benz or a Audi etc)
Sadly the Seville took after its bigger brother the 85-88 Deville with its design looking too much like lesser offerings from Olds(Calais) and Buick (Skylark/Somerset) and The 85-88 Deville was not exactly beloved ether due to it looking like a Olds 98 or Buick Electra Park Ave.
I think GM learned its lesson and refreshed the Deville in 1989 and made it longer which allowed it to look different. and in 1994 they totally redesigned it.
In 1992 the Seville was redesigned and it looked like nothing else on the road. Sales almost doubled that year compared with the 1991 version.
This car was intended to compete with the 5-series, though, not the 3-series. The thrid-gen Seville overlapped the E28 and E34 5-series; on the E28 models, the entry model was the 528e, whose eta engine only made 121 HP, so that’s probably comparable to the 130 HP HT4100. But also available was the 535i, whose M30 inline six made 181 HP, far outclassing the 4100 or 4500.
The new E34 5-series came in for ’89, with an updated version of the M30 now the base engine in the US lineup, making 208 HP in the 535i. The ’91 Seville’s 200 HP 4.9 came close to matching that, but the rest of the car was hopelessly outclassed.
The styling echoes a Nissan Exa 2 door it doesnt convey luxury it looks cheap and nasty whatever attributes this model had it doesnt look like Caddy luxury and thats what sells, If I wanted something that looks like a four door pickup I;d buy a four door pickup and get some utility to go with the styling
When my neighbor bought a new `87 Seville, he was outside admiring it. He said “Phil,you like it? What do you think”?” I said “John, nice car, but wheres the rest of it? ” He didn`t talk to me for almost two years after that.
I can hardly believe this thing is W124 sized. The Mercedes looks large, massive even. The Cadillac, while emulating the design elements of larger cars, manages to look actually much smaller than it is. There is something inherently wrong with the design, IMO. The front end is okay, but from the B-pillar back it becomes real, real ugly, not even justified by the excellent visibility provided by the thin, vertical C-pillars.
GM at the time was shrinking the outside of it’s cars dramatically, while trying to preserve the same interior space. These were far more roomy than a W124. The first generation of downsizing came off well with the 77 b body and 78 a body. To shrink the outside again, fwd and these vertical C pillars were used. I don’t think we will ever again see packaging efficiency in a sedan like this again.
While I agree a little more styling flair would have helped, I am surprised that the amazing efficiency of it is not more respected in retrospect. Does anybody really think this Seville looks more like an 88 Olds Calais than say an 88 300E looks like an 88 190E or an 88 Audi 80 and an 88 5000?
In the case of the Mercedes and Audi, I’m pretty certain that the more expensive version of each car listed came first (at least in the U.S.).
It’s one thing to introduce a cheaper car that looks like a more expensive car. It’s quite another to introduce the cheaper car first, and then introduce a car that is supposed to be much more prestigious, but still looks like the less expensive car.
Also remember that the 190E and 80 were a Mercedes and an Audi, respectively, and both marques were more prestigious than Oldsmobile (or Buick) by the mid-1980s.
100% correct. What was the idea of that hideous rear pillar/window treatment anyway – several GM products had this. I can see heads hitting the rear window from whiplash!
When one considers some of the really spectacular (if slightly flashy sometimes) Cadillacs that preceded this, how did they descend into such a styling abyss?
A very nice story on a car that is too often forgotten (although Cadillac probably prefers that everyone does forget it).
During the mid-1980s, as the article notes, GM’s strategy was to maintain the look and character of its cars, while making them smaller and more fuel-efficient.
To many customers, it looked as though GM in general, and Cadillac in particular, were giving them “less for more (money).” After the rampant inflation of the late 1970s, and the bruising recession of 1980-82, this was not a message that people wanted to hear in 1986.
Ford, meanwhile, adopted an entirely new look, beginning with the “aero” Thunderbird and Cougar. It also changed the look and feel of its interiors. Thus Ford could say it was breaking with the not-too-great recent past, and driving us – literally – towards the future. Ford was in a better position to do this than GM was, given that GM had actually been fairly successful during 1979-82, while Ford came perilously close to bankruptcy. It had a lot less to lose in making a clean break with the past. (Of course, it also helped that Ford didn’t have enough money to completely redesign the Town Car, so it struck gold when gas prices dropped and Cadillac downsized the De Ville.)
It didn’t help this Seville that a moderately priced 1986 Ford Taurus had more presence, and a more cohesive design, than this car did. When your neighbor’s brand-new Taurus attracts more favorable attention than your brand-new Cadillac…there is big trouble in Wreath-and-Crest City.
I mostly agree with you but when Lincoln made their Seville out of the Taurus, it showed the limits of the platform with staid styling and the super crappy Essex V6. I would pick an 89 Seville over an 89 Continental every day.
At the time, though, I’m pretty certain that the Continental was more successful than the Seville. That generation of Continental initially sold well, until the recession hit in 1990, and then word got around about its troublesome drivetrain and electronics.
It was a surprise hit for Lincoln and regularly outsold the Seville, even though it wasn’t really aimed at it. Despite an almost complete lack of revisions, sales actually rose towards the end of the run.
The next generation, more targeted at the Seville now and pricier, would see sales drop.
I’d wager the drop in sales between the ’88-’94 generation and the ’95-’02 generation was probably due to two things–A, the price increase (pretty substantial as I understand it) and B, the new for ’92 Seville. While the ’95 Continental was (IMO) a very attractive car, it was going against a Seville design which is perhaps the finest work of any GM studio in the 90’s. They just nailed it. Plus, once it got the Northstar in ’93, it had the performance to back up the looks. The ’95 Continental did get Ford’s new DOHC Intech V8, with similar numbers IIRC, but the Seville was much more athletic. It was a case of a very good car (the Continental) versus an outstanding car (the Seville).
Did sales actually drop from ’93-’94 to ’95 though? If so, that slide confuses me, as I really haven’t a clue who bought Continentals in ’93 or ’94, unless it massively undercut the Seville in price.
Looking at the sales figures for the Continental versus the Seville and finding Lincoln sold TWICE as many Continentals as Cadillac sold Sevilles. Heck, Cadillac sold more Eldorados during the mid-late 80s than they sold Sevilles.
If you combine Eldorado and Seville sales numbers they are nearly equal to the Continental sales numbers.
I think you just summed it up in one word, Geeber – PRESENCE. Cadillacs always had presence, but these downsized offerings failed miserably in that regard.
In late 1985 my Mom totaled her ’79 Riviera and she needed a replacement. We looked at everything – including the downsized Cadillacs. I remember the first thing my folks said when we went into the Caddy showroom – that’s a Cadillac? She ended up with an ’83 XJ-6. There were a few demonstrator and leftover ’85 Eldorados that she could have bought, and a few leftover ’85 Rivieras too. But when she drove them the smaller engines felt slow compared to her 350 V-8, so Dad decided to go for the pre-owned Jag.
The problem with the styling of the rear is that the C pillar falls ahead of the rear wheel arch rather than above it as well balanced designs do. The N bodies had the same dismal proportions. The Buick rear tail lights [by then a cliche] don’t help it and inside the dash looks like it was stolen from the Ford Ranger.
Ironically, I always found the Calais to be a better looking car in both coupe [Eldorado] and 4 door sedan [Seville].
Never realized how much the Seville resembles a Dodge Spirit or Plymouth Acclaim until seeing these pictures.
Great article.
After years of building cars that you would be guaranteed to be noticed in, they built this turd that nobody noticed. It’s easy to see why Toyota had the confidence to launch Lexus. Even a start up venture couldn’t be this bad.
If it weren’t for styling that was too similar to other, less prestigious GM brands, the 3rd gen Seville might have been okay. You have to have a little pity for Roger Smith at the time (but just a little). He knew he had to do something to get Cadillac into the demographic of the burgeoning Euro-luxury car market, lest it wind up like Packard. Unfortunately, even his best efforts weren’t enough. The story goes that the biggest failing of the Seville was it didn’t have any tail fins.
The brand-new, showcase Hamtramck plant where the Seville was built is fascinating, in and of itself. Supposedly, Smith had earlier toured a highly-mechanized ‘lights out’ Toyota plant in Japan and was captivated in how it reduced labor costs. But he didn’t grasp that the Toyota plant had been mechanized over a period of many years, with each particular operation mechanized one at a time until the bugs were worked out.
Smith, instead, jumped into the endeavor with both feet, mechanizing everything at his brand-new factory all at once, and Hamtramck ended up a total mess, with stories of robots breaking windshields and painting each other. In the end, all the expensive fixes that had to be done to each individual operation on-the-fly meant vehicles built at Hamtramck ended up costing ‘more’ than if they’d been built the old, traditional way.
So, not only did Smith have a car that didn’t sell well, it was also extraordinarily expensive to build.
Yuck. I can’t say anything good about this Seville or its Eldorado sibling – the comparison to the N-Bodies is spot-on, and they had ugly proportions as well.
Well, there is something good I can say about it – the poor sales were the kick in the behind that led to the beautiful 1992 Seville and Eldorado. Sure, they had their mechanical issues, but at least they were easy on the eyes.
However, I do confess to having a soft spot for the Toronado of this generation…
A wider C pillar and less tall rear wheel opening would have gone a long way toward helping this car not look like it was dragging its own ass down the street by a thread of metal.
The resemblance to the Acclaim/Lebaron/Spirit is too much though. I think the has designed rear treatment was to give a slight resemblance to the 2nd gen Seville
Agreed, the original is actually the one that looks like a photoshop job. I’ve taken your wider c-pillar and modified it further so that the base of the rear window actually falls to the back of the rear tire. I had to add some slope and extend the rear door slightly to make it not look like such a slab. I also lengthened the rear overhang to balance the proportions further. These cars were too small, and the goal should have been to make them appear visually substantial in a time where many still believed that more money should equal more car.
That’s pretty effective…kind of a mini-limousine look in the rear 1/3. I could see a little more trunk overhang helping too.
This is absolutely gorgeous!
I do think the slopped C pillar was an improvement and additional rear overhang also helps. The issue may be that with these additions, the car is now longer than the 85-88 Deville. Given that the Seville is supposed to be the sensible sized Cadillac, the problem becomes obvious. It becomes much harder when the Deville is itself quite sensible.
It was pointed out above that if this GM shape had started with the most expensive models and then moved down, it might have been better received. This is perhaps the case.
Wow – that looks so good – resembles an early 90’s Park Avenue!
Chris, that looks awful… Looks like the baby of a 92 Le Baron and an 89 Eagle Premier. 😛
Far better than as produced. Still leaves a lot to be desired, but it would have been highly prferable.
I love it. Great job
I’ve widened the base of the C pillar, kept the original door lines.
Doubled the height of the tail lamps too.
I played arround with the rear overhangs, but couldn’t get a result I liked.
Perhaps if I’d stretched the wheelbase the overhangs could be increased.
Yes the thicker C pillar improves it immensely it looks like a car and losing the jacked up back end look helps.
The bad thing about this generation Seville was that it looks too much like the N-bodies (Pontiac Grand Am…). Also the dash design is not good. The current generation Cadillac ATS is about half way between the Cimarron and this Seville for size. The ATS is way better looking (at least I think so). This car would have been a good Cimarron if they could have put it into production for the 83 or 84 model year, but probably it would have to have been a bit smaller with six cylinder engine.
It always saddened me that they did away with the bench seat and column shift in these cars (including the Eldorado and Riviera). Only the Toronado retained it, and it was not available at the start of production indicating that it was an afterthought. The 4th generation Seville regained a column shift in standard form (as did the Eldorado), and the Riviera regained a bench seat option upon full redesign, so apparently there was enough customer demand.
There really wasn’t any rationale in having a column shift in these cars, small as they were; besides, it would be just one additional similarity they would share with the slightly larger (though visually similar) DeVille.
FWIW, the column shifter/consolette setup on the later Eldos & Sevilles was only available on the base model with the 4.9, and was gone by ’95; it’s doubtful if it added anything in terms of sales. Column shifted Rivs were a rare sight as well.
Yes, the column shift on the later models was only available with the base 4.9 models (and paired with digital gauges), and lasted through the ’96 model year. In the mid 90s, they probably didn’t add much to sales, but in the mid 80s was something that Cadillac buyers were sill very much looking for, especially considering that all Sevilles prior had a column shift with the bench seat. I still don’t think they would have lit the sales world on fire, but I think they should have gone with the bucket/console setup as standard to push for more international minded buyers, but had the traditional column shift (with mini console or 2-passenger bench as on gen 2) as a checkbox on the special order form to appease the traditional Cadillac buyers. They did try to retain traditional shapes, and whitewalls/wire wheelcovers. Apparently, it was enough of an issue that they brought it back – just too late on that one.
I almost bought one of those later Riveras (95) with the column shift, sometimes I wish that I did. It was an awesome riding car.
Cadillac kowtowed too much to traditional buyers with this generation anyway, retaining optional wire wheels and a vinyl top. The Seville was launched to fight the Europeans, and you sure didn’t see many Europeans with a column-shift/bench.
Also, I did not remember that Seville 4 came with an optional bench! I have no issue with the Riviera having an optional bench and it is somewhat appropriate on the Eldo, but it didn’t belong on the Seville. If you look at sales figures in the 1990s too, the STS always outsold the SLS. And that was even with a higher MSRP!
The 4th generation did not come with the bench, but they brought back the column shift with a “mini console” on the base/SLS cars from ’92-’96.
See attached image of ’92 Eldorado.
“Seville 4″…for a second I was picturing one with an Iron Duke…
If they’d kept tightening the CAFE standards…
Oh no, NOT that!
I was challenged by the thought that I’m always so critical of GM designs from this period. Then I thought, could I do better? Let’s see.
I’ve spent way too much time this morning looking at the pictures and trying to figure out how to fix the styling. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the package size, as the Acura Legend pictured shows, just that GM designers at the time weren’t used to working in this size. Not successfully.
As DweezilSFV pointed out above, the C-pillar falls in the wrong place in relation to the rear wheel arch. His comments are spot on. Also, I feel the rear wheel arch itself is way too big for a Cadillac. Big round wheel arches accented with chrome are not Cadillac design language. I’d square them off a bit. And if the arch was reduced in size by two or three inches all around – and yes, maybe even skirted! – much of the gawkiness would go.
I’d lengthen the wheelbase three inches or so, to get some Cadillac-style space into that rear seat, thicken up the C-pillar a bit to shift some of the visual weight back (and make it look less like a dual-cab pickup), slope the rear screen, shrink the rear wheel arches, and lengthen the tail a few inches. Oh, and make the tail lights vertical. Horizontal lights were Euro, sure, but in a GM context they said Buick.
About the oversized wheel arches, that was a common issue with GM cars from this era. Interestingly, one of the designers posted a sketch of this car, and apparently they were always anticipating the car to be “donked” with huge wheels.
I should say that I disagree with the hive-mind and have always found these cars to be basically attractive. However it probably should have been a new model aimed at import buyers. With all the brougham trim needed to sell it to the Seville crowd, they looked awful.
Eldo sketch, if anyone is interested.
Remember there were going to be touring editions with larger Eagle Gt tires. This will tend to make the smooth ride tire/wheel look undersized. At least they weren’t the bloated out wheelwells of today. I think the Porsche 944 was the last car that looked good with those.
Now if only the production models had looked a bit more like these sketches…
The thin C-pillar on the sketch looks (somewhat) better because the concept has completely hidden A- and B-pillars. With those, a thick C-pillar would have looked odd.
Realistcally, though, I think that concept sketch is a classic example of something that looks good on the page but is never going to look good as a production model. Too many compromises needed. Never should have gotten past full-size clay before realizing it didn’t work
The funny thing is that I was about 6 when these cars came out. At the time, the ’79-85 generation Rivieras were my favorite cars, and I absolutely HATED the ’86 Riviera and its kin. The Seville was the worst, because of the way that rear door was crammed in there with absolutely no c-pillar behind it. Even at that age, I knew the proportions of these cars weren’t right. The base of the rear window should land around the back edge of the rear tire, not centered on it. Also, as an adult I know that the front overhang is dictated by the front-wheel drive transverse engine layout, but it broke my #1 all time styling rule: the rear overhang MUST be equal to or (preferably) greater than the front overhang.
I remember reading somewhere that Cadillac decided to add the V8 engine at the last minute, so they basically just added 4 inches right down the center of the car to accommodate it. Can you imagine how much more unsalable these cars would be if they were four inches narrower and V6 only.
I am not sure this is the case. The 4.1V8 was always intended for the FWD models. It was converted to the RWD lines when the V8-6-4 was unable to save the big block 368 from CAFE death.
The 79-85 Caddy El Dorado was a styling success. It was smaller than the previous generation but retained and improved on the basic elements of the Cadillac look.I wonder how successful a non bustle back 2nd.gen Seville might have been. Perhaps GM felt that this would be too similar to the downsized B bodied series. Any one want to Photoshop a possible example? The bustle back was an aberration, much like the boat tail Riviera was. It certainly did not advance the styling evolution of the marque. I had several co workers who had the 79-85 Eldos and then made the jump to the bustleback. One of them held on to his Eldo, a HT4100 model until the 4.9 was available in the new downsized Eldo. Once I saw that new “Greyhound” design of ’92 I really wanted one. I bought a two year old ’94 Northstar STS. Now this was a true successor to the Cadillacs of the past.
In the early 90s I was looking for a reasonably priced family car and decided to get a DeVille circa 85-86. Taking a risk on the 4.1 was the trade off for the low purchase price. Mine survived, but I made sure to keep the GM coolant leak stop in the radiator, I tried to ignore the allegedly harmless thumping of the camshaft end play, and I never trusted it with good reason. The only major failure was the oil pump, thanks to the car gods I was driving that night and stopped before any damage was done. It was anemic, though smooth, and the mileage was decent. If the engine had been good that car would have been fantastic, but then I would not have been able to afford one.
Would I have bought the 3rd generation Seville? Hell NO, that thing was just butt ugly and looked like every other cheap GM car at the time.
Remember there were options for you, the 88 version of that body got the longer lasting 4.5 with 20% more power. If prices kept you earlier, the 85 was available with the 4.3 Olds V6 diesel, which had solved most of the diesel issues by then and given you 4 cylinder like economy.
A spot-on analysis William. I like how you included the vague positioning in your points about this generation including not being able to pull off premium positioning anymore when the car became simply a smaller DeVille. Blocky is the best way to describe the instrument panel. That was a huge turn off for me.
The red car with blackwall tires looks pretty hot. You’re right they should have all come that way from the beginning.
As a foreigner this looks interesting and different to my eyes, in a quirky kind of way. I think a kammback version would look quite spectacular.
One small thing I would add is that Irv Rybicki was VP of Design, not director; he succeeded Mitchell as VP. It’s significant insofar as it demonstrates the importance GM put on styling; at a lot of other Detroit companies, the head of styling WAS a director, and thus was subordinate usually to the VP of engineering. By adding a VP position (which GM did back in 1940), it established styling as being coequal with engineering rather than seconded to it.
didnt like em when they were new, but over the decades its grown on me- huge greenhouse, thin pillars. i would have taken the cheaper acura, though.
We had an 93 (?) Seville on our used car lot. It had the 4.9 V-8 and that little Cadillac would FLY! The 4.9 was nearly identical to the 4.1 but somehow the engineers must have stayed up late and figured out how to make it powerful and reliable. I’ll never forget that as soon as you climb into that 11 year old car you instantly felt like red neck white trash. I used to say it was the perfect car to drive up north of Tulsa and buy some crystal meth
My dad had a 1990 Seville, 4.5L Silver with faux black ‘convertible’ top.. the top did cover the most rearward side window which helped a lot with the looks.
I do remember thinking, hmm THIS is a Cadillac?? When he bought it. Prior to the 90, he had a 1985 Eldo black on black with the stainless roof. THAT was a Cadillac except it did have the 4.1. My friends always commented on how cool it was.
The 90 Seville’s looks grew on me a bit and it had plenty of power, and floated along as a cadillac should, and had all the luxuries and electronic gadgets I could think of at the time. I felt like it was one of those cars you look at and think meh or really? But it was a nice machine to drive, and tempting to pick one up nowadays when they’re like $1500-$3000 for something decent.
I paid absolutely no attention to these when new. I still don’t. All I know is my boss bought a 87 DeVille new and it was a disaster! So was my dads 88 Suburban (also bought new). We never bought another GM after those. The DeVille went thru 3 engines in one year. Ate the camshafts. In 10,000 miles the front brake pads had to be changed. I brought the old pads back to the shop and found they were half (yes half!) the size of the pads on my 74 Pinto wagon I was driving at the time. AC also quit a couple of times in two years. Electrical problems also. My boss regretted buying it from day one. Always said he should have bought a Chrysler 5th Avenue. Only reason he didn’t buy the Chrysler was memories left over from the 50’s of a buddys Plymouth (which to him was the same car) not wanting to start when it was humid or wet outside. He used to joke it (the 50’s one) wouldn’t start if you pissed in front of it! And so he bought the Cadillac. And our Suburban, well, there’s not enough space on here to describe how bad it was.
I remember when the Seville and its stable mates (Eldorado, Riveria, Toronado) hit the streets in ’86. I knew right from the start that GM made a big time mistake. How ugly can you make a luxury car??
A local Olds dealership was offering Toronados at distress prices just to get them off the lot (with minimal success).
Thought, I had commented on this article back then? Oh well.
This return to formal roofline Seville was better than it’s Dick Tracy nosed, bustle back predecessor, but trying to recapture it’s magic it once had with the 1975-79 1st gen was already lost or had to get back…
With new players on the luxury car field like Acura, Lexus and Infiniti. Also, with fine premium sedans like the Toyota Cressida, Lincoln Town Car and Mazda 929, being offered.
It was a fine car introduced at the wrong time.
We owned an 1986 celebrity (good reliable car)…our neighbour a 1986 Cadillac. We lived on top of a hill. Late in the the evening long shadows of each looked identical…and thus went the joke…by all who came by the house.
It’s also interesting to note that both the FWD A-Bodies and the FWD E/K-Bodies were also closer in size as well. You can also throw in the RWD F-Bodies with their size similarities too.
To further illustrate my claim from almost six years ago, here is the photo comparison side by side between a 1986 Cadillac Seville and a 1986 Chevrolet Celebrity 4 Door Sedan. That era’s Seville was only an inch longer (at 190.8″) than the Celebrity (at 188″) but the Seville weighs in at least around 3800 pounds while the Celebrity on the average weighs at least 2800 pounds. 1000 pounds separate both sedans. In addition, the Chevrolet Celebrity 4 Door Sedan had more interior room including rear legroom compared to the Cadillac Seville’s “cramped” interior room.
GM basically went from Harley Earl to Bill Mitchell to Homer Simpson designing their cars. There are a lot of people whose pensions should be revoked.
I got a brand new (like 70 miles on it) ’91 STS as a rental from National on a trip to California, drove from LA to Cupertino on I-5, then my wife and I drove back on PCH. I remember the excellent handling, Ok acceleration and it looked pretty nice, particularly inside. What got me, though, was the feeling that the sport suspension was transmitting different frequencies through the structure that were not anticipated by either the body or the trim design. No squeaks or rattles yet, but a sense of plastic under stress! I thought it typical of GM, nice design, executed by 15 different unconnected departments.
The issue with American “touring sedans” wasn’t the performance numbers, it was a palpable lack of long term commitment…you just knew that the STS, Pontiac 6000 STE, Lincoln LSC, Buick T Type, or whatever wouldn’t be around after the next management change. Contrast that with the German/Japanese long term commitment to whatever image (sport or luxury) they projected, and that’s why they did so well, even with cars that probably didn’t suit the U.S. environment as well as the domestics.
I really enjoyed reading the article about the 1986-91 Cadillac Seville. As the photo of my 88 Seville indicates, a larger C pillar helps dramatically. This is the optional phaeton top ordered by the original owner. It also has the chrome strip running along the full length of the fender (usually only found on the ‘elegante’ trim level). I have seen another special ordered vinyl roof with an opera window included.
I’m old school but love driving my Seville (had an 86 Eldo Barritz) and get compliments almost every time I pull out of my driveway. The 4.5 is much more potent and the hood and grill restyling for 88 helps it’s overall appearance. I really like the ‘smallness’ of this car and how it handles on the road. I purchased it from the original owner in the spring of 2015. He babied it, as you can tell from the photo. My Cadillac dealer here says the 4.5 & 4.9 (1988 through 91) are the best engines and years for this generation of Seville. I also had a 94 SLS and loved the redesign of that generation. Just wanted to add my two cents from a baby boomer that has always loved the looks of these cars.
Beautiful Seville. Roll it with pride!
“Visibility was poor due to the upright, formal roofline with and small rear window.”
I bet the level of visibility provided by this Seville would seem astonishing to someone coming out of a 2021 sedan.
There isn’t much love for these Sevilles, I know, but a girlfriend in college (this would have been in 1988-89) had a burgundy on burgundy ’86. She was from a well-to-do family and later got a 98 Touring Sedan. I also had an elderly neighbor with a later navy blue on navy blue one, maybe a 1990, who had me wash it for her when I was home on breaks.
Anyway, this Seville had a lot of positive attributes. I think it looked better in person than they ever do in pictures. They are very awkward in pics, but in person, less so.
It was so smooth and quiet….buttery would be the word. Powerful? Maybe not in an absolute sense, but moving in traffic was effortless. Lots of low end grunt, and a lightly sprung accelerator pedal in the best Detroit tradition, to accentuate the sensation of power. It was the polar opposite of the 101hp 1982 320i I had at the time, which had to be flogged mercilessly (especially with the barely adequate A/C on) to keep up with traffic.
Compact, easy to park in the days before all the parking sensors, meat-locker grade A/C, carpet you wanted to roll around naked on, decent factory stereo in the days before that was a given……there was a lot to like.
I never knew the HT4100 was aluminum block/iron heads. Shades of the almighty Vega!!
When you’ve got an idea that works as well as the Chevrolet 2300, you don’t let it go to waste! These days we make fun of the car companies that adopt awful styling and then stick with it in the face of criticism and tasteful customer rejection. GM stuck with their upside down center of gravity and head-gasket-popping disparate expansion rate engine idea for twenty years.
By the end of the 80’s, there were a lot of youngish people who’d had ten years or so of adult car buying who’d driven Hondas and Toyotas. When they got to the point in life where they could buy a luxury car, there were Lexus and Acura waiting for them. Which would you buy if you were them – this, or a Legend/LS?
The Seville didn’t have a snowball’s chance as an import fighter.
I had an ’89 that was almost identical to the featured blue car. It was a cheap work car but what a comfy work car it was. Great seats, very quiet with extra thick glass and doors like a bank vault. I thought visibility was excellent. The 4.5L was effortlessly torquey. It had great interior space for it’s outer size. My MPG was in the lower to mid 20s and I enjoyed driving it.
The first time it had a running problem I sold it for what I paid. Most comfy car I never had until the Avalon. Also one of the most ugly if I’m honest mostly due to its embarrassing fake convertible top. But I didn’t have to see it when behind the wheel.
I still have one of the “gold” keys it came with as well!
“Cadillac tried to make their cars more European. Sales of course stayed down.”
Honda made the Legend “more European”- blocky tail lights, firm seats, firm suspension, minimal chrome, broadcloth upholstery, black wall Michelin tires. There was no Legend STS or T-Type. Those European attributes were baked into the standard Legend. Sales of course went up.
Irv Rybicki should have been hauled out of the building and had his pension revoked for that tarted-up Pontiac Grand Am masquerading as a Cadillac.
There is something really odd about the pic of the red Seville with the ‘1991’ plate on the front. Look at the front wheel, and compare it to the size of the rear wheel…the rear wheel looks markedly bigger even though it is farther away…even the rim is huge! You think marketing was using Photoshop back then?
As a mechanic, and owner of 2nd gen Seville’s and a 1988 Deville, I absolutely hate the transverse placed engine. They had a good design and ruined it by turning the engine sideways in their insane desire to shrink the design. The new styling was bad and serviceability was terrible.
This generation Seville becomes sort of attractive (most likely even more so in person) once there is about 6″ in length added to the “C” Pillar and rear end. Much more of a traditional Cadillac appearance, although smaller for the times. With the lengthening, the proportions of the car come together, and the higher deck height then blends into the body lines much better. Wheelbase and doors can stay the same. Minimal weight added. Once you see the Seville with this lengthening, it really makes the factory Seville look like a shortened cartoon copy.
The factory 1990 Seville – cartoon looking compared to the lengthened version.
Approximately five years ago the Minneapolis/St.Paul CraigsList advertised a 3RD generation Seville that had been rebuilt into a hearse. Remember it being a dark copper brown in color and that its extended rear quarters produced an attractive, balanced silhouette. After thinking it over whether it could be operated back into being an almost standard stationwagon, two days latter returned to the CL, but it was gone. Sort of remember the added rear quarters were solid panel, totally hearse-like in their appearance; i.e., that it appeared to be a hearse, not a mid-size stationwagon. Regret not getting&keeping a copy of either its sales ad or even a JPG of the hearse itself, but then never thought that info would be passed on to others.
“It looks like a dual-cab short-bed pickup with a hard tonneau cover. That’s the problem”
Old Pete, December 28, 2015
Couldn’t have said it better myself. This completely nails it.
The ’90-’91 Sevilles appear to be more balanced due to the design of the front spoiler. It’s actually quite a sharp-looking car.