(first posted 8/11/2017) Scientists loathe the popular term “missing link” when it comes to evolution. Instead, they use the term “transitional fossil” for the remains of a life form that exhibits traits of both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group. While automotive taxonomy is rather different to the study of extinct animals, and typically has better preserved fossils, there are still cars that represent a divergence between what was and what would come. The lines, however, can still be blurred. Case in point: the 2000-05 Cadillac DeVille.
Today, the Cadillac car species is genetically and identifiably of the North American content, but with traits characteristic of European species such as rear-wheel-drive and exceptionally agile movements. Cadillac cars had to evolve to survive as their environment became increasingly populated with invasive species from Europe and Japan. That evolution started with the 1975 Seville. Although it sounded and moved like its larger counterparts, the Seville was sized more like the European predators.
There was the ’82 Cimarron next but that was an evolutionary dead-end. In terms of taxonomy, it was often identified – although generally not by automotive paleontologists – as “Cimarron by Cadillac”, therefore making it part of a different family. Maybe.
The Seville and Eldorado families saw their herd numbers dwindle during the great European migration but had adapted somewhat to the changing environment, being smaller and more nimble after A.D. 1986. There was some genetic variation in the species by now—the 1988 Seville STS and Eldorado Touring Coupe models were the most agile yet of the Cadillac species. But the most dominant Cadillacs were the big front-wheel-drive DeVilles and, although they were smaller, their visual characteristics were similar to earlier generations.
By 1994, the DeVille had assumed a more imposing stature and yet its innards had become slightly more restrained and contemporary, even vaguely European in appearance. Another modern characteristic was the new Northstar V8, as well as a descendant to the old Touring Sedan known as Concours. Still, the DeVille looked and handled much like past DeVilles.
Then came 2000. The North American landscape had become home to many species of foreign rear-wheel-drive vehicles but the DeVille retained front-wheel-drive. Although the Northstar V8 was no more powerful, the DeVille family now had an undercarriage – GM’s G-Body platform, first seen in the Oldsmobile Aurora – that could better handle evasive maneuvers while retaining the DeVille’s historic ride quality, presaging the cars of Cadillac’s forthcoming renaissance.
The DeVille’s longevity was aided by a more reliable version of the Northstar, going a long way to stopping premature deaths in the species; headgasket failure was now less common. The Northstar could now be sustained with regular fuel as well and drank slightly less. For 2004, the engine would be improved further with redesigned head bolts, while the version of the Northstar seen in the RWD SRX, XLR, and STS was generally regarded as reliable from the start.
The new DeVille was 3 inches shorter overall, with a 1.6-inch stretch in the wheelbase, however its proportions remained much the same. Styling was softer and smoother, aimed at a younger audience: baby boomers. This group of people had become accustomed to imports and GM recognized that even the DeVille had to evolve to better meet their standards. Having the Seville in showrooms wasn’t enough, and GM hadn’t clearly delineated the two families, making cushy and sporty editions of both.
One negative trait of the new DeVille was its interior. The previous generation’s interior was almost austere, trimmed with restrained wood appliques and subtle two-tone treatments. The new generation had a bolder design with a more ergonomically-friendly center stack that jutted out, plenty of space in every dimension, and extensive use of soft-touch plastics. However, there were problems: panel gaps were quite large, particularly around the hard plastic center stack; the digital instruments and some of the switchgear were somewhat naff and reminiscent of lesser GM vehicles; and the overall cabin design lacked the elegance of a Lexus LS. A classy touch though, reminiscent of the Lexus, was the use of vacuum-fluorescent analog gauges in the luxury-spec DHS and sporty DTS. The traditional bench seat and column shifter remained in base and DHS models, while a console was mandatory in the DTS.
Available on DHS and DTS models for $1,995 was Night Vision. This used a thermal infrared camera mounted in the grille, the footage displayed on the windshield ahead of the driver. Cadillac claimed this allowed drivers to see 5 times farther. There were high hopes for this technology but it wasn’t a popular option and was never offered in any other GM vehicles until a much more advanced unit debuted in the 2016 CT6. Also a $1,995 option was the DeVille family’s first satellite navigation unit, while ultrasonic park assist, LED taillights, side airbags, and rain-sensing wipers made their first appearances in the DeVille too. These joined the carryover Continuously Variable Road Sensing Suspension and Stabilitrak, which first debuted in the previous generation.
There was a lot of thoroughly modern technology in the car, although Cadillac resisted the movement to five-speed automatics. The 4T80 in the DeVille was a smooth-shifting unit and in 2000, four-speed automatics, while hardly innovative, weren’t yet an embarrassment. The Northstar V8 had made quite an impact when it debuted in 1993, and although the 2000 had no more power than a 1999 DeVille, its power figures were still thoroughly class-competitive: 275 hp and 300 ft-lbs in base and DHS models, and 300 hp and 295 ft-lbs in the DTS.
The DTS was tuned for superior higher-end performance, and the two different tunes mirrored those of the Seville SLS and STS. Handling was better than any DeVille ancestors, the DTS staying commendably flat in corners and earning praise from critics for its all-round competence. Even the base and DHS models were notably better behaved than the old DeVilles, although steering remained light.
The DeVille’s greatest advantage was its price when compared with similarly-sized or similarly-equipped rivals. Starting in the low $40,000s, it was around $10k cheaper than a Lexus LS400—the big Lexus cost about as much as a loaded DeVille DTS. Those prices also compared well with the Lincoln Town Car, its less modern and much less powerful crosstown rival.
Unfortunately, the DeVille didn’t evolve during its run. Minor feature adjustments were made and cooled seats and a heated steering wheel were new options for 2004. Otherwise, the 2005 DeVille was identical to the 2000. Although the DeVille outsold the LS every year and the Town Car almost always, sales did gradually decrease each year during the car’s run. Overall Cadillac sales and market share experienced an uptick in 2002, but much of this was attributable to the new, entry-level CTS and the increasingly popular Escalade. The brand was the 4th best-selling luxury brand in the US that year, climbing one spot from 2001 at the expense of Acura.
By the 21st century, the Cadillac species had undergone a rapid evolution. To many, it looked like an entirely different creature. The DeVille family, however, scarcely evolved. The 2006 DTS had a more contemporary appearance but it was otherwise little changed. Engines? Still the same, and the Northstar High Performance in the flagship DTS Performance was actually down-rated to 292 horsepower. Interior design and quality? Arguably worse, with an Impala-esque dashboard, hard plastics and even faker woodgrain. Features? Nothing new—Night Vision and adaptive massaging seats had disappeared during the DeVille’s time on Earth. All that was new were Magnetic Ride Control in the Performance trim and a dashboard clock. The family hadn’t kept up with a changing environment and the pack dwindled quickly.
When the DTS became extinct, the XTS arrived shortly thereafter. Perhaps this car is the real evolutionary dead-end, even though its physical appearance, interior design, powertrains, and feature content are reminiscent of its kin. A curious outlier in Cadillac’s otherwise entirely RWD sedan lineup, the XTS is an endangered species – using the Buick LaCrosse and Chevrolet Impala’s Epsilon platform – and will be extinct by the beginning of next decade. It appears FWD is only for Cadillac crossovers.
Although the 2000 DeVille may be easily lost in the fossil record, situated between the floaty, starchy DeVilles of the 1980s and 1990s and the sharp STS of the 2000s, automotive paleontologists should consider its historical merit. This was a car that brought together impressive new technology with traditional Cadillac virtues like a smooth ride and a big trunk. Reliability was improved, at long last, and handling was better than any ancestor that carried the DeVille name. Unlike the DTS, its performance and technology compared favorably with its much more expensive rivals even if its quality couldn’t match them.
The best part? You don’t have to excavate a site or go to a museum to find one.
DeVille DTS photographed in Outpost Estates, near Hollywood, CA.
Base DeVilles photographed in Washington Heights, Manhattan, NY and near Lafayette Park in Detroit, MI.
Related Reading:
Curbside Classic: 1998-04 Cadillac Seville – The FWD Sport Sedan’s Last Stand
Future Curbside Classic: 2006-11 Cadillac DTS – A Letter to GM
Future Curbside Classic: 2014 Cadillac XTS – How To Say Fleetwood In The 21st Century
Interesting car.on an unrelated note can some one do cars of NORTH KOREA please?i just could not find any information on line.
Look up Pyeonghwa, a joint business venture between the Moonies church and North Korea. I think that they use obsolete Fiat sedan and Chinese mini truck designs. There’s also the enigmatic Keangsaeng 88, named probably for the year it was conceived. It’s a bad copy of a Mercedes 190E. It looks the part, but I have heard it said that it only appears the same and doesn’t even actually have a heater.
For you:
http://mashable.com/2015/11/01/north-korea-cars/#hHHyzD8_NiqQ
Thank you very much.it was very informative.
When a story about Cadillacs brings North Korean cars to mind, I begin to appreciate just how far Cadillac has fallen in prestige.
Ugh. From the “Standard of the World” to the cop-out “American Standard of the World” to this: the “Standard of Nothing.” Let’s see, inferior materials, fwd with 4-speed auto for a “luxury” car in the early aughts, soft steering and “costs less.” No better way to build a premium brand image than cheap and inferior….
The truly pathetic part is that this thing was introduced in 2000!! It wouldn’t have been competitive against the original Lexus LS400 in the early 1990s, never mind the upscale Europeans. Livery fleets and great grandparents in Boca Raton didn’t care, but no status conscious Baby Boomer in their right mind would have wanted one of these.
Speaking of evolution, Cadillac continues to chase dead ends with their cars. Now, 40 years after the trend emerged, the company is finally building cars that can almost “drive like a BMW,” right when the market is clearly moving away from the old luxury sports sedan concept (even BMWs don’t bother to drive like BMWs anymore). Where was the legitimate world class sedan in 2000, when people were still buying world class sedans? Where was the game changer, like the stunning Cadillac Sixteen concept car brought to life? Aah, that’s right, we got this instead: “The Standard of Nothing.”
Do you actually know what the Dewar Trophy was about?
Uh yeah, I do. Cadillac won it in 1908 for parts interchangeability, and they used to market the award decades ago (long after it was actually relevant or even still factual). So I am well aware of the original derivation for “Standard of the World,” but that leadership was long gone by 2000. My point is that Cadillac was no longer a leader against any attribute that mattered to discerning luxury car buyers in 2000. That’s why they were the “Standard of Nothing” during this period.
I would love to see Cadillac become the “Standard of the World” again, and be able to legitimately make a credible leadership claim. No more “as good as” but rather “the best.” After all, “the best” is what sells genuine luxury products. It’s not about parts standardization, either. It’s about overall excellence, quality, style and exclusivity–which was ably demonstrated by Cadillac in its heyday when the brand liberally used the “Standard of the World” tagline.
FYI, I’ve been collecting car brochures for decades and am pretty well versed in the Marketing brands have used through the years, including the awards they’ve touted. So from memory I knew exactly where to look for an example of the Dewar trophy marketing, in this case from 1981–ironically listed on the same page as the new V8-6-4 that was anything but world class.
So in answer to your question, I “actually do” know what the Dewar Trophy was about….
Well good. What Cadillac’s advertising agencies (probably not in house) have tried to imply, but never explain, by adding “Standard of the World” to their advertising, has never been true as far as I am concerned. I remember seeing a lot of Cadillac advertising in the Saturday Evening Post from the late 50’s to early 60’s where a Cadillac is posed with some jewels, and somewhere “standard of the world” is stated. I always wondered is exactly what that was supposed to mean, as it seemed fishy to me.
Leland rescued Ford’s first venture into the automobile business from failure when his investors asked Leland to advise them on how to liquidate the company. He said that it made more sense to put a car into production, and, with Leland in charge, Cadillac came to be as a mid-priced car. Durant wanted to buy Cadillac for his General Motors holding company, and Leland’s investors wanted 3.5 million. Nothing came of this, but Cadillac continued to do well and eventually Durant got back to them, but now the price is 5 million or so. Cadillac is to become GM’s luxury brand but this does not make them a standard of the world.
After World War One, Pierce Arrow and Packard are closer to the “standard of the world” for American luxury cars, not Cadillac. The V16 is what puts Cadillac on a par with Pierce Arrow and Packard, but this does not make Cadillac better than either one. After World War Two Cadillac’s production is basically the low end (series 60) cars from the prewar days. Again I don’t see that Cadillac does anything after WW2 to earn them “Standard of the World” class.
To my way of thinking Cadillac has never been the “Standard of the World”, but it did get a trophy for “standardization” which is now pretty much the standard for all manufacturing of vehicles.
Love the way that you wrote this in the style of a scientific treatise. I was imagining this being read by Jay O. Sanders of PBS’s “Nova”.
+1. Brilliant writing perspective, Will.
Great piece.
Try hearing David Attenborough instead…something about an english accent to really imply intellectual superiority of the material being read. Then, reread with Morgan Freeman narrating. It boggles the mind….
^—THIS—^ Awesome. I just reread it with Morgan Freeman’s voice in my head, and now I can’t unhear it. I’ll have to try David Attenborough next. Priceless.
Great read William. Very well done.
We had one of these transitional fossils abandoned at the end of my street for like 3 months earlier this year. A 2001 vintage, I do believe…
…but a paleontologist wasn’t called to excavate it; a tow truck operator was called to extract it.
Presumably, its Northstar V8 was too expensive to fix, most likely beyond the value of the car, rendering it a dead end, much like my cul-de-sac. ;o)
Back in 2010 and 2011, the primal urge to have a DeVille parked in the Shafer Garage was a huge one. While the source of this urge is unknown, two DeVilles were test driven back-to-back; one was a ’98 and the other was an ’04 or ’05. Both were base models.
The differences were indeed quite vast. The ’98 had the old Cadillac feel of point-and-shoot driving (which is lambasted all too often) while the ’05 was quite connected to the road and everything was as smooth as silk. The ’98 was a more comfortable car while the ’05 was much more driver oriented with much better ergonomics as Will states, although less comfortable (relatively speaking).
Within the past year, I’ve driven a ’14 or ’15 XTS, also a base model, on numerous occasions. It’s superior in every way but it simply is missing that V8 sound when accelerating, replaced by the incomplete but eager to please snarl of a V6.
All three have their distinct virtues and none had any glaring deficits. Each was built at a different period in time for different purposes.
Will, thanks for this; I really enjoyed it.
Another step backwards… as seen in Scottsdale winter of 2017
While I’m imagining scary amounts of chassis flex, that actually looks really sharp. I’m a sucker for a 4-door convertible and the lines are well suited to it!
+1. I’d like to see photos of it with the top up.
+2
Although admittedly lacking the raw horsepower of the tainted Northstar V8 engine, I believe that the same years of the Lincoln Town Car have withstood the test of time better and more gracefully than this generation of Caddys.
Indeed! In addition to an exterior design that works, the Lincolns also have the Ford Modular V8, an engine that, while not exactly a powerhouse, has a VERY stout bottom end, and is known to hold together for many hundreds of thousands of miles in tough commercial and law-enforcement use. Some have achieved the one million mile mark with no internal service.
Northstars can’t compete at that level, which is why for every 50 Town Car limos you might see, there might be one DeVille.
Well written, R Henry!
If a cop or a cabbie can’t kill an engine; who can?
I have friends at the cop shop and several taxi services here. Other than the 4 cam the engines blow spark plugs all the time. True, not a major repair, but so common I stayed with my dinosaur cars.
I have to agree. The 2000-up Deville/DTS is competent, but always felt soulless to me. It didn’t help that they all seem to be beige or silver/grey, except for the all black fleet/livery editions. I’m not sure whether they were trying to make it German, or trying to design something conservative and predictable for the Florida 5 PM early bird special crowd. Or maybe trying to split the difference between the two, which could be the problem.
This is a great article that makes its point quite clearly about this generation of DeVille being the “missing link.” To my eyes, it still “looks” like the Cadillacs of my youth but with hints that the brand was evolving. Also in terms of nomenclature; aside from the Escalade, I believe this was the last Cadillac to have an actual name before they switched over to just initials (XTC, CTS etc.)
I have never been, nor will ever be a Cadillac person. That said, I felt the model shown in the picture of the red sedan was fairly classy looking (oops, should point out I mean the 90s Concourse). I seem to remember some of the car magazines “singing it’s praises”, at least at first. Then when it was compared to sedans built in Germany, it suddenly wasn’t “the standard of the world”.
As for the car detailed in the write-up: how appropriate the pictures show a grey car. The 2000-2005 De Villes look like what the stylists might have started with…as an example of what NOT to finish with. Or perhaps, it is/was an instance where the clay model was approved for production….but the clay melted, badly, before the contours were transferred to metal. It truly is a grey, anonymous looking car, with perhaps the grille and certainly it’s massive bulk telling you it’s a luxury car.
Now that I think about it, this car puts me in mind of the mid 70s Ford featured a few days ago, with it’s slab sides, massive grille, and huge rectangular tail lamps.
I was waiting for someone to say this. It’s a generic-looking big car, with none of the elegance of the earlier design. And instead of nicely-worked jewel-like details, we have amorphous blobs for the head and taillights, like the designer didn’t care.
The design says “big car” all right; what it doesn’t say is “prestige”.
“amorphous blobs” Well said. The whole car looks like an amorphous blob to me.
A great approach to this oddball of a car. To me, this Cadillac was almost as defined by what it was not more that what it was. It was not a traditional big American sedan yet was not European or Japanese either. It was not fabulous, nor was it terrible. Not beautiful but not unattractive.
Had Lincoln offered something with this car’s power, it would have been something. But this Caddy was just another car for the people programmed to buy a new Cadillac every few years.
That pretty much sums it up. Granted, I’m not really a “Cadillac Person” either, but I struggled with this one. It’s just kind of “meh”. I’ve come across a few well priced examples of these in great shape while doing some preliminary online shopping for a second car, and I’ve wanted to feel like one might be a good deal, but they’ve failed to inspire me. There’s already a late 90’s luxury/touring car in our current fleet of one anyway, so one of these would be a redundancy.
“Transitional Fossil” would be a good name for a band.
Cadillac really screwed up when they wouldn’t build what went on to be the 1963 Buick Riviera. It was supposed to be a Cadillac but they were too short sighted to believe that their cash cows might ever stop milking, so one of the most stunning cars of the sixties was built by Buick instead.
Buick needed the help. Cadillac already sold everything they could make in 1963. Their own entry in the Thunderbird class in 1967 is a legendary design in its own right.
Oh, I agree – but imagine that first Riviera as an ur-Eldorado!
I’ve often had a sense that after being mired in the Great Brougham Epoch for far too long, Cadillac design in the ’90s was sort of adrift until the first CTS brought in the Art and Science theme. It took them a full decade to figure out how to make a car “look like a Cadillac” without all the outdated gingerbread.
I have sometimes wondered whether it was so hard for Cadillac to figure out how to make their cars “look like Cadillacs” without being Brougham-tastic, or if they were just desperate to squeeze those last few thousand sales out of the Greatest Generation. These were cars that appealed to the traditional Cadillac customer without looking entirely dated. And let’s face it, 2000-2005 were pretty much the last years during which the core group of traditional Cadillac customers were going to be viable prospects for new car sales.
Compared to the Chrysler LH sedans of the same period for example, these really do look like dinosaurs. Clearly Cadillac missed the boat by not producing something a bit more universally appealing, as the LH’s were popular choices across several demographics. They would have done a whole lot better, IMO, to aim for something a bit closer to a “Cadillac LH” instead of continuing to try to please the octogenarians while also trying to aim “The Caddy That Zigs” at the up-and-comers. We all know how that whole mess worked out.
The problem with Cadillac styling is that they have to use GM generics as their base. In the old days, when they had their own bodies, engines, and the like, they showed a bit of cache in how they presented the engineering that made a Cadillac a Cadillac. Now, add more frosting to a GM cake, and sell it for more, even if the base cake is dry, bland, and generic.And really, since they are not selling coupes and sedans, why not just make GMC into Cadillac and just sell trucks and SUVs? Why bother when you don’t really want to succeed?
What “old days”? The full sized Cadillacs shared it’s body with senior Buicks since the mid 30s – Even the lofty factory “D” body Fleetwood limousine body was shared with Buick in the late 30s and Early 40s. The DeVille body in particular was shared with the Oldsmobile 98 and Buick Electra from the 50s to the 90s.
Although I would suspect that the Cadillac was the primary reason for the big GM C body to exist, thus guaranteeing that it was designed as a high end car rather than the more recent GM practice of starting with something lower on the ladder and turning it into a Cadillac.
Not sure on that, The majority of “C” bodies were Buicks and Oldsmobiles. That provided the cost justification. Plus I nearly forgot that between 1936 and 1951 Cadillac also used the GM “B” bodies on various Series 60,61, and 63 Series cars. While not exactly the rampant “badge engineering” often seen today, Most of the “Big Three” luxury lines have shared bodies with their lower brothers. A notable exception was the late 50s – mid 60s Imperial. All have shared other components.
Also remember that the top-rung Buicks were prestigious cars in their own right for many years.
They were what we would today call “near luxury” cars.
Quoting my observant Grandfather: ” Gangsters, Mafia hoods and ‘New Money’ buy Cadillacs. People with quiet good taste and ‘Old Money” people buy Buicks.”
And that was to Cadillac’s chagrin. Many wealthy families of the old money type would wern’t Packard types would buy a Roadmaster or Limited (or even a Lincoln or Imperial) to avoid the “gauche” new money look. Internal pressure led to Buick to end the “D” body Limiteds. The thing that cost Buick it’s prestige was dealers demanding cheaper models to move, starting with the “senior compacts” in the early 60s.
But the reason that the top C body Buicks and Oldsmobiles were so popular is that everyone knew that underneath it was virtually a Cadillac. My point was that they didn’t take a midlevel GM car and tart it up, they started with a car that would be suitable for the most expensive car in the line and shared the body with other Divisions for their very top models, giving them some volume that would pay some of the freight. Nobody ever said in 1955 that a Cadillac was just a blown-up Oldsmobile or Buick. People said that about Imperials and Lincolns all the time, but never about Cadillac.
….. Except when they did “tart up” mid level GM platforms (the aforementioned “B” bodies) in the 30s – 50s – Clearly well within their Glory Years.
But JPC, was the C-body really much different in design than the B-body? Styling seems about the same which to me implies that the under lying structure is similar. I do understand that the C-body was not interchangeable with B-body parts like fenders, but the underlying structure may have been very much the same, with perhaps some additional refinements to beef up the body (or I would hope so).
There were more significant structural differences between GMs A/B/C bodies untill 1959 when the “C” body became essentially a stretched “B”, The “A” was dropped for a few years then reemerges as a “mid size”, even though the revived “A” was fairly close in size to the old “A”s
LIke what exactly? For example the 1950 Special and Roadmaster bodies are available with the same style. However, todays ATS/CTS bodies are similar, but the CT6, on a different platform is different as is the XTS.
Same body styles (types) is not the same as the same body. I’ll just use the 4 door sedans for illustration. The 50 Buick Special was a “B” body with a 4 window greenhouse and smaller rear doors. For the sake of this thread, this body was shared with the 50 Cadillac Series 61. The 50 Roadmaster (and Super) was a “C” body had a six window greenhouse and larger rear doors. This body was shared with all other Cadillacs that weren’t LWB “D” body sedans/limos. In 1959 the B/C greenhouses were basically the same across all 5 divisions. This changed from 61-84, but the “C” was more related to the “B” underneath for 59-84 than it had been from 36-58. Almost all 59-84 differences are roof length and rear door shape while from the B pillar forward the were the same. The entire roof, A pillars windshield, etc are different from the B and C body 1954 Buicks for example.
I looked at the 54 Buick and Chevrolet. Chevy does not get wrap around windshield until 1955. I do see the difference in the A pillars for the Special/Century compared to the Roadmaster. However, they all have wrap around windshields which makes me think that the basic body structure is more the same than different. I do understand that the C-bodies had more space/distance from the A pillar to the C pillar than the B bodies, but that could be done by simply making the connecting body structure longer.
Chevy (and Pontiac) didn’t get the wraparound windshield until ’55 because they were “A” bodies. the “B & C”s in those years came out ahead of the “A”s The Chevy and Pontiac moved up to “B” bodies for ’59 allowing all of the new full sized GM cars to come out at the same time (for the first time). As far as the Special VS. Super/Roadmaster windshields, While they both wrapped around, They are different glass (look at the frame on an “A” vs “B” closely.) Again, even this was gone mainly after 1958.
It’s fascinating to study how Fisher’s basic bodies were shared between the divisions back in the thirties. It certainly wasn’t cut and dried like in the fifties. At one stage ‘lowly’ Pontiac were using only B bodies (leaving the A body for Chevrolet alone, good for product differentiation), then just before the war used A, B, and even C bodies for the top model. Talk about confusion of market position!
The study of just the 1936-1984 run of RWD GM ‘A/B/C/D” bodies would be at least a “Community College” course. It’s often been weird: Yes “lowly” Pontiac was granted a “C” body in the ’40s Also at times Oldsmobile 98 only got as high as a “B” body. Then too, the “D” body was only ever bestowed upon Cadillac and Buick. Then there’s Pontiac’s Gand Ville – A “B” body with a “C” body roof! That’s all without the 71-78 “E” FWDs using heavily modified “B” Bodies!
I’ve had over 100 Cadillacs, and over 160 Buicks. It always seemed to me that Buick out Cadillaced Cadillac most of the time. Mine from the 50’s, ’60’s, and 70’s the Buicks were faster, stopped better, and out handled my Cadillacs from the same years. I don’t have Cadillacs, I still have my ’63 Electra convertible with 425, Twin Turbine trans, full power, A/C, leather interior, and 500,000 miles, by the way 0-100 is 18 seconds in drive (faster if low is used to 70 mph) and averages 22-24 mpg on cruise, also have a ’64 Riviera but thats luxury personal catagory. A side note, a gentleman in his 80’s backed his last generation Deville sedan into the left front bumper of my ’56 DeSoto Fireflite (inherited from my dad) while I was getting gas. There was zero damage to the DeSoto (there was paint transfer which rubbed off.). The Cadillac had a buckled rear fender, the trunk was popped and would not close, the tail light was smashed, and the rear bumper was hanging on the left side. He apparently exceeded the 5 mph bumper rating.
I think GM really got into strife when the divisions adopted a common-engine policy. Given that the divisions were all sharing bodies and other engineering already, and even the cheaper divisions’ models could be optioned up with all manner of luxury equipment, where was the logical reason for choosing a Cadillac? Status and heritage will only take you so far if the product is not demonstrably superior to a ‘lesser’ brand’s equivalent model.
If wikipedia is right, then probably there was a basic body design at some point in the 20’s that was used by perhaps Chevrolet and Pontiac. GM did acquire control of Fisher Body in the mid 20’s. Supposedly according to Wikipedia the A body was first and the B, C bodies were developed from the A.
What I am sure of is that the body designs are evolutionary as time marches on. So the post war body designs are not all new, but are updated pre war designs. The wrap around windshield is a good example that all three body designs are using some common design elements. While there may be differences, I think they are more alike than really totally different designs. The wrap around windshield was not the best idea ever.
I think this generation Deville was a step back from the 94-99 generation. I have driven several of these 00-05 Devilles (including a couple that were only 1 year old at the time) and they always struck me as feeling cheap. I just thought it was me until I bought a 1995 Deville 2 years ago. This 1995 Deville was used but was not beat on. The car felt more substantial then the 00-05 Deville. My 1995 has the non Northstar 4.9l which is considered quite reliable(if GM had offered the 4.9l from day one back in 1985 then the Deville would not have suffered the 4.1l image issues.
Minor note: All versions of the Northstar could take regular unleaded if need be without any engine issues(it would suffer with lower MPGs) as it has a knock sensor. The 4.9l had to have premium gas as it did not have a knock sensor.
The problem is that the 4.5 and the 4.9 are the same engine as the 4100, just with the problems fixed.
These lackluster & troublesome engines are one of the many reasons my parent’s upscale friends dumped their Cadillac cars for Lincoln Town Cars in the 1980’s and 90’s……and NEVER went back to the Cad.
A good article. I think however that the Eldorado Turing Coupe was first offered during 1993 model year. During the 1986-1991 model years the Eldorado was either a plain Eldorado or the Eldorado Biarritz.
The XTS is on the Epsilon platform, which has been upgraded to something new. The XT5 is on the C1XX platform, which is based one the Epsilon, but upgraded, and only for crossovers.
The Eldorado Touring Coupe was actually first offered on the ’79-’85 platform. I’m taking a wild guess and thinking it was in ’83 that it first appeared. They’re pretty rare, I believe, but they did exist, even prior to the ’86 redesign. I don’t think they were badged with the ridiculous “ETC” moniker until after ’86 though.
Wikipedia does show that you are right. My 1990 catalog for Cadillac does not show an Eldorado Touring Coupe model as such. A Touring suspension is an option though.
Having worked around state government and social services, naming a Cadillac “DHS” really seemed like bad marketing to me.
Say what you want, but I’d love to have a 2004 – 2005 or so Deville – with the “fixed” headbolts. I had a 2001 Aurora, so not too far away from that. I loved that boat. We called it hte “old-Man-Mobile” and I drove it from 124K to 210K with only minor niggles, either electrical or sensor-related. Never stranded me although I swear someone put magnetic air in the tires to attract all sorts of detritus in the tires. I replaced or plugged 3 of 4 nearly new tires in the first 6 months I had it.
I could care less what the Euros are doing. Or Lexus or Infinity or Acura. Or any of the new cars, for that matter. My grandfather always wanted to own a Caddy – he never did. My dad had 3. a 76 Coupe deVille, a square fleetwood ( I didn’t like it), and a 94 or so as pictured above. He owned other makes as well, but the Caddys were the ones that made him feel best.
I test drove one that was beat to hell and back (the headlight flew out at 50 mph on test drive). Coulda got it for around $1k, but the message center was telling that it had NOT been maintained properly. Only thing going for it was that the headbolt work had been done. Woulda been a good donor for something – it looked pretty good from 15 ft away -the headlight coming out was a total surprise. Man needed to sell before he moved to FL the next week.
I like the design enough and the interior feels fine to me. And it says Cadillac on it. A $40k car for less than $4k at this point. If it’s a good one, what could be better in my world? Owned by older folks who took care of their car and never did anything weird in it. Drove to church on Sunday, hair salon on Saturdays, and to Florida in October, returning in March or April. Having it checked and maintained by Marty, the local mechanic, who fixes it and puts it on your tab. Yes I do live in Mayberry as a matter of fact. Goober is now Marty. And Marty is pure gold.
I don’t want a gussied up Camry/Accord or euro thing. Give me a Cadillac. Put my ashes in it and push it off a cliff when I die.
Good work, William. Far more interesting than this generic “Car” ever was.
I have a very low standard when it comes to plastic on dashboards, but that looks awful even to me. First thought: “I’ve seen that sort of plastic before !! Oh yeah: ION”. Unbelievable really.
Half a**ed attempt at “Cadillac Style”. From the rear, it looks like a competing company tried to mimic Cadillac with those ill defined tail lights. A bad imitation.
Add a little chrome to the Corsica grille and you’ve got the formula for “The Standard Of The World”.
Oh how I loathed these. The DTS finally made it look okay, with some definition and more clarity in the front and rear, but the featured car: nothing. What an insurance company would use as an anonymous car in it’s advertising.
To paraphrase the current Buick ads: “That’s not a Cadillac”.
In 2005 we took a trip to visit family in North Carolina. We ended up splurging for a small upgrade to a luxury rental car, and we ended up getting an 05 Deville DTS. My only prior experience had been my very short ownership of a 1983 Coupe DeVille, and that thing barely ran. Other than that, everything I knew of Caddy’s was from reading magazine articles about them.
The interior was decent. I’ve never been a fan of GM plastics, they always reminded me of DuPlo blocks… a knock off of Lego blocks… just not quite the same quality. Other than that, I actually really enjoyed driving the car. It was a big bruiser. Felt very quick, made good sounds when you really got into it. It ate up freeway miles so comfortably. Driving on the 2-lane country roads around my family’s homes it handled surprisingly well. It wasn’t ‘floaty’ as I was expecting. A 2-day jaunt out to the coast was very enjoyable.
I wouldn’t have paid for a new one for sure, but I thought about snagging one that had the initial depreciation curve taken out of it. A few years old, off lease, CPO… then it looks like a decent deal.
When the redesign came out in 06, I actually liked how the Art & Science was applied to the DTS. I prefer that look to the 00-05 versions.
You’re probably thinking of Mega Bloks. Duplo is Lego’s preschool line.
My memory of Megs bloks is they had a weird waxy matte texture, they’d mate up perfectly with Lego blocks but that one mega blok in whatever thing you created mostly out of Legos stood out like a sore thumb. They were more brittle too, I used to play hard with my legos, build them up, smash them and build them again, and it seemed like the individual pieces were completely indestructible. Mega Bloks would crack in the corners or their fit would gradually loosen
I’ll give GM interiors some credit, they were definitely on the Lego/DuPlo side of quality….Which is to say they’re very plasticy. Mega Blok is British Leland.
These were okay, even though I thought that the styling was a little odd at the time. The headlight/parking light ensemble had a strange shape.
These cars appealed to the Cadillac faithful (a crowd that had been steadily dwindling in size since the early 1980s), but would not steal any customers headed for the Lexus or Benz dealership.
I wonder if Cadillac was looking at a second-generation Infiniti Q45 when they came up with the profile for the 2000 DeVille.
I’ve noticed that, too.
A Chevy Sonic feels more solid than any of these FWD Caddies prior to the Epsilon-based XTS.
Yes, I’ve driven a number of DeVilles/DTSs, some at upwards of 120 MPH. Each one had that unmistakable “the front of the car feels like it’s falling out from under me” feel that most every GM FWD vehicle had from the 80s ’til only recently.
The recent/current GM platforms no longer exhibit that annoying feature.
Hence the solidity of the Sonic, and my wife’s 2011 Equinox for that matter. Just put struts and shocks on it this year, at 110,000 miles. Feels like new again.
Cadillac needs to keep aiming higher and more exclusive. Sure, keep an ATS/CTS as an entry-level vehicle but take the marque to where they can once again offer a credible top-level vehicle that rivals Rolls and Bentley.
Back when they took “Standard of the World” seriously.
Back when they were the standard of the world they were not a luxury car, but a mid-priced brand more or less like the Buick or Oakland brands (this was early 1900’s).
Gotta call out the CC Effect when I encounter it…
On my way home from work today, my low pressure light came on in the Mustang and I pulled into the Wawa for some free air (one of the few places that still offers it). The air filler was in use, so I had to wait a few minutes.
The woman ahead of me, while talking on her cell phone, was putting air into the tires of one of these. Same color (or lack thereof) as the subject car too.
While I was waiting, a guy pulled into the convenience store lot with a bright red Shelby GT-500 of the same generation as mine, a 2007 V6. I should’ve grabbed pictures of the scene, but I was just taking it all in. A CC Effect and a rare version of the S-197. The best part… the guy in the Shelby gave me the thumbs up upon seeing my lowly V6.
The cellphone talking, air filler using, woman in her aged Cadillac, just drove away after smiling and handing me the hose, not missing a beat in her conversation. Not a bad Friday afternoon early commute home.
Well, now there’s a glowing endorsement!
I’ve never had much affinity for this generation of Deville due to the style or lack thereof. I just can’t get used to the front end treatment. The headlights look like melted blobs (by far the worst part) but the grille also seems to be at an unhappy medium between being a tradiional, squared-off unit and a modern, rounded one. Plus a modern Cadillac needs the wreath and crest in the grille, and the featured silver one doesn’t carry it. The back isn’t as bad, but there just seem to be curves for the sake of curves, like the sides of the taillights.
The side profile is fundamentally sound, so when they put a much tauter and more modern nose & tail treatment on the car in ’06, it made everything work so much better. Maybe not the best drive at that point given the age of the components, but at least it looked right!
I think these cars get more grief than they deserve.
I learned how to drive on my mom’s ’94 Cadillac Deville (technically still a Sedan DeVille, as it changed to just “Deville” with the 1996 refresh). Anyway, we had an extended warranty, so when the car when in for service, we’d get loaners.
When the Y2K Deville came out, we got one as a loaner, and it felt like a HUGE upgrade over the previous generation. It felt leaps more contemporary than the outgoing generation, which had truly reached Grandma Car status. Its steering was much better than the ’94.
While the interior may not have been Lexus-level in the 2000, at least it LOOKED like a modern vehicle, not like something out of the 1970s with a tiny radio and old-school straight-across dash like our ’94. The plastics were an upgrade all-around, the buttons were soft-touch and supple, and I specifically remember the chrome interior door handles feeling like quality. This was the first production car with LED tail lights — I always remembers seeing my first Y2K Deville in traffic and marveling at how “exact” the flashes for the blinkers were. No fading. So cutting-edge!
I love the missing link analogy and I think this car was a great way to move Deville into the future without alienating its traditional buyers. The 2005+ DTS never looked right to me and I actually prefer the ’00 to ’04 styling.
The car that should be getting the grief IMO is the ’98 Seville. THAT is that car that needed go toe-to-toe with the Germans on driving dynamics and the Japanese on interior quality and it did neither. The redesign was so subtle I didn’t even know that it was an all-new vehicle on a new platform until a decade later! I thought GM was being uber-cheap and just did a heavy refresh as trucks picked up in the late ’90s.
Anyway, thanks for the memories.
De Ville at least means something, and in French – prestige!
But “Deville” sounds like a female devil.
God I hate these cars, the cheap plastic interior, the blobby ugly styling, the general sense of apathy. If there was ever a car that personified the stereotype of Cadillacs being driven exclusively by old people, this is it.
The thing I hate most is the aforementioned sense of apathy. You get the sense that the engineers and designers looked at the flaws and went “Who cares?” Much like the Buicks built in the same time frame, you get the impression that GM knew it’s target audience and figured they would eat them up. (Which, sadly, was not proven false) “Hey, shouldn’t we make the interior better?” “Who Cares?” “Hey, the styling seems off, shouldn’t we fix it?” “Who Cares?” “Hey, shouldn’t we put something more powerful than a 4-speed transmission in these cars?” “Who Cares?”
These are some of my least favorite Cadillacs ever, if Cadillac wanted to be taken seriously, this was the last vehicle that should’ve been in the showrooms.
If this car was The Standard of The World, then I’m Mahatma Gandhi.
In his second book about GM, Bob Lutz commented on how GM had applied a heavily metrics- and numbers-based system for tracking car lines to production, which led to them putting designers’ first drafts into production since waiting for refinements screwed up their “on time” targets!
Bravo! Loved how you wrote this in the style of Animal Planet or Marlin Perkin’s Wild Kingdom. Keep it coming!
I always had a thing for the big Cadillacs, even the 1980s FWD models. And damn was I disappointed when the 2000s Deville came out. It was a completely generic car with only the barest of minimum brand styling. I always thought it looked like a bloated Camry.
And don’t get me started on the DTS…
I thought this was Saul’s car in Breaking Bad, but a check reveals he had a ’97.
This would make his car 12 or so years old, he must have really liked it, since he could have afforded anything he wanted at that point.
Other than the ’85-’88 run these are probably my least favorite Sedan DeVilles. I’m starting to come around to the ’79 and ’80 models being the last of them that had enough unique and quality features and good enough looks to be a proper representative of the brand, even if highly formal. Maybe the 5.7L ’90-92 Brougham but the Chevy engine bugs me.
But I could at least summon visual interest for the 90s models. These ended that immediately, and I haven’t really been interested in any new Cadillac in years now.
“Cadillac’s forthcoming Renaissance.” When.
When the day comes that Cadillacs are cross-shopped with Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Audi, then talk to me about “Renaissance”. Until then, you’re completely dreaming using that term.
True mechanical improvements aside, a huge difference between the 1994 release and the 2000 is a much trimmer-looking body. The ’94 was bloated, or maybe it had the mumps. The 2000 fortunately lost the corpulent look.
I owned an 04 Deville from ’07-13. The Northstar’s reputation made it a really good buy, and I can’t remember any engine trouble. Liked the cooled seats and column shift and basic ergonomics. Didn’t like the Pop ‘n Drop windows–3 out of 4 went bad. The front doors would open a little too far, and I have long arms, so small old people must have disliked that.
I now have a Platinum DTS, which despite the real wood, full leather seats and dash pad, and ultraseude headliner, isn’t quite as nice or good looking inside, but it does handle better and has great throttle response from the lower gearing. The RWD Cadillacs have <14 cu ft trunks, too small.
2000-2005 deVille looks like a bloated 1998 Hyundai XG/Grandeur. Once you’ve seen it you cant unsee it.
Probably drives like a bloated Hyundai too, without the reliability!