(first posted 2/21/2014) The 1980s were not kind to Cadillac. While in the 1960s they could do no wrong, in the 1980s it seemed they couldn’t do anything right. The shrunken new-for-1985 models were perhaps rock bottom for Cadillac.
Cadillac was a powerhouse in the 1950s and 1960s. They consistently outsold both Lincoln and Imperial and were, it seemed, in a class of their own. It could be said they were a victim of their own success, as the cars started to become less special as Cadillac chased ever higher profits and vehicle output. Starting in about 1969, Cadillac started skimping on interior materials. What had been chrome plated hardware was replaced with flash-plated plastic. Real wood trim on the Fleetwoods was replaced with the soon-to-be ubiquitous wood-grained vinyl. Starting in 1971, the C-body Cadillacs had even more in common with their B-body corporate cousins, while the Chevrolets became even more Cadillac-like, particularly the Caprice. This was all small potatoes compared to the missteps of the 1980s.
1980 would be the last time for several years that you could purchase a Cadillac and not have major issues. The 368 CID V8 was robust and powerful, and the new styling of the ’80 Cadillacs was quite attractive. In 1981, the ill-fated V-8-6-4 was introduced. It was a good idea, and today is used successfully on many vehicles such as the Chrysler 300, but in the early Eighties the technology was in its infancy and the cylinder displacement module was nothing but trouble. It could be disconnected, but the folks who were buying new Cadillacs were not happy with this solution and Cadillac’s reputation suffered.
1982 was even worse. The new aluminum block HT4100 was introduced that year, replacing the 368. Basically, it was a slow, unreliable piece of junk. At least the car’s styling was still attractive as it sat at the curb with its hood open. The Cimarron also came out for ’82, and the less said about that thinly-disguised Cavalier with a leather interior, the better. The 1982-1984 de Villes and Fleetwoods were not reliable vehicles with their 4.1L ‘hand tighten’ engines, but at least they looked imposing and were clearly Cadillacs. That would change for 1985.
Here is a 1984 Coupe de Ville. Still nice-looking, yes? As long as you traded it in before the warranty was up, you could probably enjoy this car, albeit with more than a few dealer visits in all likelihood.
This is a 1985 Coupe de Ville. Not so impressive, eh?
my Caddy is (barely) bigger than your Tercel!
They were introduced as early ’85s in March of 1984 and although they had more space and were perhaps more driver-oriented, most people had a hard time taking them seriously as Cadillacs. With the exception of the Fleetwood Brougham, all de Villes and Fleetwoods rode a much-reduced C-body platform, shared with the Buick Electra and Olds Ninety Eight. While the Cadillac had an exclusive V8, it wore the new design the least successfully.
The Electra looked the best in my opinion, with the Olds in second place. They also had the benefit of a reliable 3.8L V6, instead of the self-destructing Cadillac engine. If you had to have a GM luxury car in 1985 the Buick and Olds were safer bets, and a real full-size Delta 88, LeSabre, Parisienne or Caprice might have been an even better choice.
1985 de Villes and Fleetwoods were now front wheel drive with a transversely-mounted version of the 4.1L V8, with a 4.3L diesel V6 as a no-charge option. The 4.1 produced 130 hp at 4200 rpm and 200 lb/ft of torque. Confusingly, Fleetwoods used the new body, while Fleetwood Broughams used the 1984 full-size platform. In GM’s defense, during the early ’80s most people thought gas prices were going to go through the roof. After the second gas crisis in 1979, gas was expected to hit $2 a gallon in a few years, so GM designers had to adapt Cadillac styling cues onto a much smaller platform. These shrunken Cadillacs were the result.
Not much changed for 1986. The de Villes got the wider chrome rocker moldings used on the Fleetwood, but that was about it. 1987 brought composite headlights, a new eggcrate grille, and slightly extended rear quarter panels with new taillights.
The big news for 1988 was a new engine, the 4.5L V8. This engine finally replaced the boat-anchor 4.1 and was much more reliable. Cadillac offered a new six-year, 60,000 mile powertrain warranty to back it up. The 155 hp, 273 CID V8 had digital fuel injection and was mated to a four speed automatic with electronic overdrive.
Both Coupe and Sedan de Villes continued to be offered. The full cabriolet roof, first offered in 1987, was still available. It actually did look like a convertible, as long as you were nearsighted enough to not notice the cut lines for the faired-in doors. You could also get a formal cabriolet roof in vinyl with opera lamps on the Coupe, or the standard painted steel roof – probably the least common choice. After all, this was a Cadillac, and lots of exterior gingerbread was the order of the day. Let us not discuss the horrid dealer installed grilles or fake continental kits that graced many of these Caddys.
Other than the engine, the 1988 models stood pat for the most part. Finally, Cadillac had a decent engine in their volume line, although the cars themselves still looked an awful lot like a Volvo 740 with a Brougham package.
That would change for 1989, when Cadillac finally restored the full size proportions, at least a little bit. The 1989s marked a slow return to what Cadillac stood for, and the Nineties would be kinder to the marque.
I ran across this ’88 Coupe while shopping for new batteries for my camera. I knew it was a 1988 as soon as I saw the 4.5 Liter V8 badge on the back, the only way to tell an ’87 from an ’88. That engine is probably the reason this car is still on the road.
It was in really nice shape. There was no rust and even the driver’s seat was not worn out. I do see these cars from time to time, but they are usually in pretty sorry shape. This one is identical to the Coupe de Ville in the 1988 Cadillac brochure. Someone must have looked at the brochure at the dealership and said “I want one just like that!”
Cadillac stumbled badly in the Eighties, and though there would be trouble with the Northstar later on, Cadillac gradually returned to health. The current CTS and XTS, while not as great as the 1960s Cadillacs, are nice cars. Hopefully they’ve learned their lesson, and hopefully Cadillac’s darkest days are behind them. After the 1985 de Villes, there was nowhere to go but up.
This is the very junk that got GM into such a fix. God, how I hated those ugly, tall, upright rooflines. The ’80s produced the worst looking cars ever. I look at the gorgeous Cadillacs from the ’60s and early ’70s and wonder what in the hell went wrong in the ’80s and even into the ’90s. Picture a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado or a 1966 Oldsmobile Toronado or Riviera from that era and there’s intense beauty in what you see. Wonderful quality and top notch engineering, beautiful quality interiors and rugged powerful engines. Fast forward to the Regan era and GM is littered with one mess on top of another mass of messes! Ford and Chrysler were wallowing in flotsam as well with ugly K cars and Ford’s overuse of the Fox platform. Remember the ugliest Thunderbird and Cougar ever built from 1980-82! May the ’80s forever be as far forgotten as possible!!!!!
Those FWD 1985 Cadillacs suffered from the dullest period of GM styling ever. Everyone reveres Harley Earl and Mitchell, but who remembers Irv Rybicki? (Sp?) EVERY car and truck coming out of GM in the 80’s was a stilted, straight-lined, unsculpted bland mobile. Even the “sexy” cars were dumbed down. Compare a 1981 Camaro/Firebird to the 1982 versions. And the 1984 Corvette was a technological triumph, but lacked the voluptuousness of its predecessor and follower. I knew the 1985 Cadillac was bland, but when the 1988 Riviera came out, I was dumbfounded! Charles Schulz could style cars better! It was truly over when the 1988 pickups came out. Nothing more than straight lines and rectangles…The new breed of CTS-image Caddies are encouraging, but if the “quality” of my 2006 Corvette is any indication, I’ll pass…
To accomplish the blaming about the 80’s Cadillac’s. 😉
I still like that thing even I’ve got many troubles whit engine overheating caused by those lousy water pumps. Yes the head gaskets are still ok 😉
Electronic troubles, hard to find parts for the convertible type (here in Switzerland) etc. I don’t understand why they didn’t kept the good old 350 Olds engine and made them of alloy instead of designing the 4.1 L HT crap. No torque, no power same gas mileage as my Tahoe which weighs about one tone more than the Caddy.
Anyway, it’s still fun to enjoy a couple nice sunny days a year for granny stile cruising. But I will definitely not start a round the world trip with this Devil(le)
>> Starting in about 1969, Cadillac started skimping on interior materials. What had been chrome plated hardware was replaced with flash-plated plastic.
The reason for that was the NHTSA’s Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 201, which took effect in 1968 and covered dashboards and door panels as they related to occupant protection in a crash. The general approach taken by the auto manufacturers was to eliminate chrome, aluminum, stainless and other metal components from dashes starting with the 1968 model year. Which is why the interiors of 1969-70 Cadillacs are so full of craptastic plastic that’s impossible to restore. Blame FMVSS 201, and not Cadillac.
This 4.5 has been great for me since Aug, 1992. Now with 252K miles & still going strong. And a head-turner.
A head turner? NO WAY! A stomach turner? Most definitely!!
Rear view
I used to own an ’83 Eldorado with the super, shi*** 4.1 V8. That Eldorado was a money pit. It never ran right. It pinged all the time, the engine would surge at cruising speeds, the front end wore out prematurely, and the interior materials were absolute garbage. Not to mention the rotten paint quality and interior water leaks and a climate control system that was a major failure. The “level ride” feature for keeping the rear of the car level under load was always breaking. Oh, and let me not forget the passenger side power window motor failing on a rainy day! Nice. Especially since the dealer charged me $400.00 to repair the damn thing! I bought this car used and it had around 50K on it. It appeared to be well cared for and it seemed pretty nice at first being a quiet ride and that, but boy what a hunk of junk it was in a short time of owning it. The only other cars that were absolute crap that I owned was a ’95 Volkswagen Jetta GLI (a major nightmare!) And a 2001 BMW 328. An absolute piece of garbage! The best cars I ever had were a 1988 Honda Civic wagon that I bought used with 100K on it, and I added another 220K! And a 1984 Toyota SR-5 4X4 truck that I still own with 173K. My everyday car is a 2007 Toyota Corolla with 95K that has been 100% trouble free. I would NEVER buy a FORD, GM and especially a Chrysler product. I would never want to own any german brand either. The Japanese brands, and the Korean makes are absolutely the best built, most durable cars on the planet.
Caddies used to have neat triad horns. I pulled a set from a super, stupendously, ugly ’80s Eldorado. I installed the horns on my beater Camry wagon. Imagine the surprise when some inattentive dullard on the road gets a tritone blast of those old Caddy horns coming from a tatty old Camry!
My dad had a an 83′ Coupe DeVille purchased brand new that was my first car some years later. It was actually trouble free until it hit 75,000 miles then it started falling apart. The single reason he opted to keep it and not turn it in after the lease was up because the 85’s were so small.
A friend of mine had an 89′ Coupe DeVille and I fell it love with it. When the 83′ engine blew at 127,000 miles I sold it and purchased a 90′ Coupe DeVille. I loved that car. I owned several different Caddy’s since that 90′ coupe and it still remains my favorite with 83′ a close second.
Is there any software that can filter out all the crap about how unbelievably fantastic Japanese cars are?
The truth is Japanese and European cars are superior. Especially if you are comparing the shit Cadillac was stinking up our roads with in the ’80s and ’90s. I think that the only people who have some twisted love affair with these clunkers are those folks who can’t afford a decent automobile to own. Face it, these cars are what nearly drove the final nail in Cadillac’s coffin. It has taken over 30 years for Cadillac to try to make a name for themselves once again, and it’s an uphill battle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaZqQLpbjFU
this about says it all
My 1988 Cadillac DeVille
Southern California
81,000 miles on it
Love it wouldn’t trade it for anything
I’d stick with my 88 Brougham d’Elegance over one of these oddly styled golf carts any day. When I buy a Cadillac, I want a Cadillac. Not some imitation of an ugly eurocar. When rear drive went away, I went to Lincoln. All of the rest of the pretenders bought trucks. Clearly, gas prices and size were not the issue at all. Or they were just fooling themselves.
It’s almost painful to read Tom’s concluding remarks after 6 years have passed: “The current CTS and XTS, while not as great as the 1960s Cadillacs, are nice cars. Hopefully they’ve learned their lesson, and hopefully Cadillac’s darkest days are behind them.”
My Granddad had a red ’90 SDV which I ended up with in exchange for acting as his chauffeur for a bit. My friends used to refer to it as the “blue hair advantage” because it was damn near invisible when returning from being out in Buckhead on the weekends. I also enjoyed use of it as a budding road warrior, inhaling the miles driving back and forth from Atlanta to Savannah.
As bad as the reputation of the 4.1 was, the port injected 4.5 was rather pleasant. The engine and transmission were about as well matched as anything I’ve driven, snatching a quick downshift almost telepathically but never holding it any longer than needed. It certainly made the most of the available 180hp.
I read through all 152 comments, whew, such vitriol! I guess that things can get quite heated when we discuss something that we either love, or hate,- a lot. I worked on the production line in the late 70’s and early 80’s for General Motors. I came from a UAW family and the American auto industry meant something to me. There was lots of good and some bad, but it provided my family with the opportunity to enjoy security and a degree of upward mobility. Cadillac also meant something to me on a personal level, even though I was never going to be the person that would buy a brand new one.
There was a very good article in Collectible Automobile ( August ’87) entitled Cadillac in the 1980’s, Design Dilemma, by Harry Bradley. I could not find an online copy but I’ll try to summarize. Cadillac has lost it’s way, changing demographics, both social and economic have eliminated the possibility that a modern Cadillac could ever again be a competitive “World Class” car. Since Cadillac is based upon mass produced GM platforms and mechanical components, it could not be exclusive enough, and be priced high enough, to appeal to modern high income consumers. He noted that there are now more wealthy people, and they are more wealthy than those of the past. These people are not brand loyal and they are likely to want to try new and different products. They are also not limited to Western European backgrounds and traditional American design holds little appeal for them. In fact the opposite was probably true. Traditional American designs seem old fashioned and retrograde. Definitely not prestigious or a positive reflection of their self image.
Bradley’s recommendation was for Cadillac to retain their focus on providing reliable, comfortable, quality vehicles that are recognized as “good worthwhile cars” but to quit pretending that they are or were comparable to Rolls Royce and compete in what is now called the “near luxury market.”
I found that recommendation startling at the time. Cadillac should settle for being an Acura, or even worse, an Oldsmobile? No matter how Cadillac wanted to be thought of as, the reality is that consumers decided what a Cadillac really is. Cadillac is now thought of as a higher, glitzier, trim level of a corporate GM car, truck or SUV. An Escalade is not thought of as being better than a Tahoe or Denali, just different. And not always as “different” in a complimentary manner.
This was described in detail in the CC post that described the new Ford Explorer as the “real” Cadillac. It became the aspirational status indicating choice. Driving a new Explorer ( and other higher line SUVs) made a much more complimentary statement about the owner than some stuffy 90’s De Ville.
I still love old Cadillacs, primarily from the mid 1960s and 1950’s. Now those were real Cadillacs!