(first posted 11/11/2016) While all the GM Deadly Sin articles generate plenty of lively discussion, there was one car awarded that dubious honor which prompted an especially high level of debate. The first generation Cadillac Seville was arguably a borderline deadly sin—not nearly as good as it should have been, but a popular and profitable product that did satisfy a lot of buyers who loved the notion of a smaller Caddy. But what would happen when an Oldsmobile Diesel made its way under the Cadillac’s hood? Would fans of European Diesels come running? Car and Driver had some thoughts on that, as covered in the October 1978 issue.
Merely sizing a Cadillac like a Mercedes-Benz did not make it a world class luxury car, especially when it lacked the engineering excellence and quality materials of its German rival. Likewise, stuffing an Oldsmobile Diesel in the Seville did not make it a legitimate alternative to a 300D.
To be fair, when it was introduced, the Oldsmobile Diesel was initially praised by the press. Buff books felt it offered respectable performance (for a Diesel) and good fuel efficiency, making it an interesting choice to improve fuel economy in larger, heavier American cars. Unbeknownst at the time, though quickly discovered, was the fact that GM had cut corners in the Diesel conversion of the Olds 350 V8. The motor would soon be infamous for blown head gaskets, clogged fuel lines and other serious maladies that prompted numerous recalls and helped turn generations of buyers away from Diesel power in the U.S.
One key issue for the Seville that was readily apparent by late 1978 was the fact that the new C-Body DeVille/Fleetwood and the newly announced E-Body Eldorado were far better, more modern platforms. The stretched X-Body, which had seemed reasonable as a stopgap in 1975 and 1976, was eclipsed. The opportunity, of course, would have been for Cadillac to make the 2nd Generation Seville a much improved version of the Americanized “International” theme. Instead we got an over-the-top bustle back with the lethal Diesel standard. The bizarrely baroque styling was a complete turn-off to the growing ranks of luxury buyers with more globally-oriented tastes and took Cadillac in the exact opposite direction from where the market was heading. Talk about a deadly sin!
Compounding Cadillac’s sin was GM’s goal to be a leader in manufacturing techniques, rather than placing emphasis on making a superior car. Car and Driver editor David E. Davis hit the nail on the head when he stated: “Why should I care how they build them? What’s important to me is how they drive.” GM had clearly lost the plot on this simple fact by the late 1970s, and the extent of the damage would be painfully apparent in the 1980s.
As noted in the counterpoints, there was also debate surrounding Diesel-powered luxury cars. Of course, Mercedes-Benz had built much of their reputation in the U.S. on the functional benefits of the Diesel, which showcased the quality, efficiency and durability of the products from Stuttgart. For Cadillac, however, the brand reputation was centered on hedonistic luxury and flamboyant style, so the Diesel made for a somewhat odd powertrain choice. Sure, if you wanted high mileage benefits, then the Diesel made some sense, but for customers forking over $16,582 ($61,401 adjusted) the price of gas couldn’t have been much of an issue, nor did most Cadillac owners intend to keep their cars for a decade. Pragmatism was never part of Cadillac’s allure, so the trade-offs required by a Diesel (slow, smelly, noisy) were harder to justify, and that was before people learned just how bad the Olds Diesel really was.
The performance tables were a classic example of how certain test results did not actually capture the reality of the car. On paper, the Diesel Seville looked pretty good in many ways, and bested Mercedes in certain attributes, like quietness. But GM didn’t excel at the holistic excellence of the product, where the Mercedes-Benz was hard to beat. Rather, Cadillac selected “key metrics” to “beat” the Germans, but in reality, the Seville Diesel wasn’t surpassing the 300D at all. Cadillac simply didn’t grasp the evolving motivations of prestige customers. In more recent times, in a case of “déjà vu all over again,” Cadillac mimics a few European “features”–like responsive handling– and then touts its sedans as “outperforming” BMW by fractional differences on a test track, while failing to match (or even understand) the comprehensive appeal that its rivals offer. Perhaps GM’s Deadly Sin hubris just hibernates, but never really goes away…
If ever there was a deadly sin for General Motors, I believe this was it. Although I’m all for offering diesel engines for cars, I’m so against the way the cars were built around the engine.
A Deisel luxury car would’ve never appealed to me. Mercedes-Benz got a way with it in my (then teenaged mind) because they also built trucks. Hedonistic luxury was/is my idea in a luxury car. Skidpad performance was for sports cars, Diesels were for trucks or economy cars. Side note: I’m one of the few here that liked the gen 2 Seville (but with gasoline engine and steel roof!).
The MB diesel owners I knew were engineers more into the technology than luxury. Yet they preferred the diesel over the gasoline six for its simplicity, so cost sense was part of it too.
Once again I ask knowledgeable posters here: could low cetane numbers be a part of the American aversion to diesel cars?
Perhaps increased cetane rating might have made a difference, but to be honest, I doubt it. There were too many cultural influences which made diesel a hard sell for Americans:
Gasoline engines have (to my American eyes) many advantages over diesel –
* First was the historical low price of gasoline for decades
* Cheaper to build and buy; most vehicle companies charge a premium for a diesel engine
* Quieter
* No smoke or smell
* Smoother
* Ease of servicing – American auto mechanics knew how to service gasoline engines… Diesel engines-
“ Well, there’s your problem right there, buddy. You ain’t got no spark plug wires.”
* Fueling – almost zero American gas stations carried diesel fuel until (15?) years ago. You had to go to a truck stop on the rough side of town where the big rigs fueled. Fortunately you didn’t have to go very often.
So, Average American speaking here “Why would I want to pay more for an engine with less power that runs rough, smokes, smells, which nobody can work on, and for which I have to go way across the wrong side of town to fuel up? The fuel savings will never repay the premium I had to pay for that diesel”.
Of course, the first Oil Shock changed a lot of that thinking and fuel economy became King. Diesels were suddenly, perhaps, worth having despite their drawbacks.
Sadly two things happened to ruin their chances. The first, we’ve just read about – GM made the very name diesel a curse. The second is largely forgotten but it was perhaps just as important. The government wanted money (surprise!) and decided to raise fuel taxes. However, gasoline was already heavily (by U.S. standards) taxed, and American drivers were already howling about gasoline prices. So the answer was easy: put the burden on industry and make the trucking companies pay the taxes. Suddenly, diesel fuel was the same price as gasoline. Truckers went on strike for a while, but voters didn’t care. This situation survives today:
The average price of a gallon of gasoline is $2.354; a gallon of diesel is $2.389
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/PET_PRI_GND_DCUS_NUS_W.htm
Finally, the Americans I knew in the 70’s who were buying Mercedes were not buying them as luxury cars per se as by American rules they weren’t very luxurious. People were buying them as quality cars – you changed your GM car every three years, and in the 70’s every time you did the car you got was slower, uglier, and worse quality. The argument was that you paid more (for what you got) for a Mercedes, but it lasted for at least a decade….and if you bought a diesel, you had a car that would last forever..
Was GM deliberately trying to destroy Diesel’s reputation by producing a poorly built engine and car? Because that’s what it sounds like. I thought General Motors had Diesel specialists? Didn’t they have Detroit Diesel?
I wondered about that too but Paul told me 2-stroke technology isn’t all that transferable but still, you’d think they might’ve been consulted FWIW, for “outside” advice can be very valuable. My guess is, they never bothered to ask, or ignored their input. In my experience, corporate “synergy” is a myth foisted on shareholders, or at least rarer than one might expect because of turf, pride, logistics, etc.
2 stroke diesel?
GM’s Detroit Diesel built 2 stroke engines. Such experience wouldn’t have been of great value in developing a “civilized” automobile Diesel engine.
Yes, they had Detroit Diesel, but most likely they either ignored their advice or did not consult them in the development of their own Diesel engine. Actually, I think that the best scenario would have been for GM to use the GMC Toroflo V6 Diesel engines which had already proven themselves in truck and bus applications. There were three versions – 351, 478 and 637 cubic inch Diesel engines.The GMC V6 Toroflo engines were known for their durability, ease of maintenance and strong low RPM torque. This would have solved many problems and quite possibly save GM from the major headaches they had with the Olds 350 Diesel. engines.
Since most luxury cars (in the E- and F-segment) are long distance runners over here, the preferred choice is a powerful diesel engine under the hood. And that won’t change in the upcoming years, that is, not in big and heavy sedans and SUVs driving (way) over 30,000 km a year.
The most powerful top-segment diesel sedan these days, also the only one with a V8, is the Audi A8 4.2 TDI (385 hp / 627 ft-lbs). Our king has one, the Stretched Limo Edition.
At the time of this article the Olds diesel was assumed to be well made, which it was not, but who really knew (except for GM’s diesel division).
I suspect engineering staff knew, but were ignored by mgmt. as Chicken Littles.
I think that the diesel engineers advised them that they were barking mad, but to no avail. I bought a used 1978 Olds 98 diesel which gave me reasonable service while I owned it. I traded it for a new 1983 Buick Skyhawk, which was equipped better than any Cimarron in that I had automatic climate control (electronic touch no less).
My, oh my….I just finished reading Paul Niedermeyer’s piece on the 1976-79 Sevilles, and wondered how that car possibly could have been made any worse than it already was.
Thank you – I guess – for having answered my question.
Give me a 1965 Ambassador any day, over the Seville.
The same, by a margin, but I wouldn’t kick a first gen gas powered Seville out of my garage.
Never thought the Seville front end ever did it any favors but the tail lights are great.
Meow:
Joining the bandwagon, and replacing the AMC engine (whatever it is) with any current diesel + 5 or 6 sp g/box immediately to become a modern day frugalist?
The 76 Seville absolutely was a decent car for 1975. It wasn’t an S Class, but it was thousands of dollars cheaper, despite being more expensive than a Deville The exchange rate had gone bonkers. The only MBs cheaper than a Seville were stripped W123s, which simply weren’t in the same ballpark as luxury cars. They were taxis.
I have to agree. I’ll take a Mercedes-Benz W123 Diesel any day over a Cadillac Diesel.
The only American. car I’d consider would be the AMC Rambler Ambassador.
Ugh!
So concise, JP!
It is interesting that Seville allowed the diesel in. At the time Mercedes thought the diesel not appropriate for luxury vehicles. Remember the W116 300SD was USA only. They of course had not achieved diesel Cadillac levels of interior sound and amenities even with their gas engines, never mind the diesel. I know, I know, cool people don’t care about that stuff.
The 300SD was significantly slower than a 280S. That was a moot point in the US luxury car market, but an absolute liability in Europe.
Think MB was more thinking about NVH than slowness. Europe being used to some bizarrely small base engines. 2.8L XJ6, 518i, 2.0, 8 valve, single carb Pug 605.
A 518i, single carb 605, etc, were taxis, not luxury cars.
A 2.8 XJ6 would run away from a 300SD. By 1978 the smallest Jaguar engine anywhere was the 3.4, which was much more powerful than a 300SD.
Between 1976 and 1981 or so in my family’s circle there were 2 Diesel Sevilles, 2 Diesel Delta 88’s, 2 Diesel Cutlass Supremes and a Diesel Ninety Eight Regency. We never owned one, but we were clearly in the minority in the neighborhood. (Oldsmobile fever was rampant though, and we too had a 1980 Toronado at the time, powered by gasoline, thankfully.)
As far as I can recall, by the time I got my driver’s license in ’84 both of the Cutlasses and one of the Deltas had had their engines jettisoned for gasoline engines, the Ninety Eight was on its second engine (a warranty replacement) and the family who owned both Sevilles had bought the second (a used ’78 in addition to the ’79 they’d bought new) only because they’d somehow had decent luck with the ’79 and got such a good deal on the low mileage ’78 at a few years old that they were now the proud owners of 2 of these stinkbombs. (Although I’m still sticking with my opinion that they were very pretty stinkbombs.)
The moral of the story: In the “Keeping up with the Joneses” upwardly mobile suburbs of Northern NJ, as well as I’m sure plenty other similar leafy suburbs, Dieselmania was real, and the early Olds Diesels were status symbols of a very high order, prompting plenty of “Me Too” purchases> It was quite fashionable during those years to come clattering up to the club in your stinking, rattling, wire-wheeled, vinyl-topped, Opera-lamped GM Diesel, showing off how smart you were to be stickin’ it to those OPEC bastards. We all know how it ended.
Our Toronado was my family’s last GM car. One of the Cutlasses went on to college with the kids from its original family, who bought Hondas and Toyotas upon graduation. The Ninety Eight was traded at about 3 years old for….a Mercedes 240D, with manual transmission and MB-Tex upholstery, and most likely manual window as well. (The owner was an air force retiree who was a diehard Diesel advocate. He went on to own other Mercedes and Audi Deisels over the years as well.) One of the Delta 88’s was traded by ’82 for a Mercury Marquis. Oddly, the family with the 2 Sevilles still owned both in at least 1990, but they were relegated to curiosity status in favor of a Honda Del Sol and Dodge Caravan used daily.
I don’t know that any of those folks or their offspring ever bought another GM product, at least none that I know of up until 2006 or so, and I tend to doubt they’ve done so in recent years either.
“It was quite fashionable during those years to come clattering up to the club in your stinking, rattling, wire-wheeled, vinyl-topped, Opera-lamped GM Diesel, showing off how smart you were to be stickin’ it to those OPEC bastards.”
What an awesome visual – Thank you!
The march of time makes this one interesting. I had perhaps one ride in this generation Seville, and recall the car as being posh in an American way, but cramped in the rear seat. While I was fairly young, I was aware this was Cadillac’s most expensive offering, and had trouble with that. Even with its extensive list of standard features, the price was hard to fathom.
My parents had a ’78 Caprice, perhaps the best year for the B body, and it did not disappoint. It provided our family 15 years of very good service, a feat that our earlier ’68 Chevy Impala previously could not match, as it was mostly worn out at 8 years. That that B body was like the Seville, but easily better in all ways, shows how valuable a prestige name is to a manufacturer.
Two things stand out as remarkable for me in the article:
Like most of the public, I was only aware of the Old’s 350 diesel after people were shouting obscenities to it in the streets. That it was lauded in the press, and called a good performer at introduction is a bit of a surprise. The press was obviously of the mind to compare it to the Mercedes products it liked, so found its performance acceptable in some European cultural way. For the broader public that compared this engine with fond and recent memories of previous GM gas 350 engines, the lack of performance, increased maintenance, and poor reliability were obviously not remotely acceptable.
The second thing is the article’s making me aware that the Seville had a 114-inch wheelbase and yet was far less space efficient than either our 116-inch wheelbase Caprice, or the soon to be released 114-inch wheelbase Ford LTD. Underpinned to a degree by the 1968 Chevrolet Chevy II, the Seville was a quite dated car in ’79. Not only was the Seville interior a bit cramped, but the trunk was more of an under achiever than the article gives it credit for.
I’ll defend the Seville as responsive to its times, even if it only seemed perfect for small elderly ladies that rarely had rear seat passengers (and no need to stow golf bags in the trunk). If the second-generation Seville had been a different car with good quality, I think the first generation would be better respected for what it was in the context of its times.
Criticizing a gas-powered Seville for not meeting Benz standards is one thing, but modern recollections of the W116 and W126 turbodiesels by people old enough to remember those cars lead me to believe that auto-journos weren’t exactly in love with big Benz diesels, either.
If anyone has a road test of either of those cars to scan, I’d be very interested in reading one.
Stay tuned 😉 I’ll be posting something soon on the W123 Diesel (long term test), and I’ll see what I can find on the S Class Turbodiesels.
My Dad had a diesel W126. Performance wise it seemed fine, it never felt anemic nor did it struggle to keep up with traffic, go up a hill, or anything like that. The biggest problem was finding a gas station in our area that sold diesel fuel! I think it had almost 400,000 miles when he got rid of it and got a gas powered W126 which surprisingly, was not very reliable.
My uncle had a diesel powered W123. That car was pretty scary to drive in fast moving traffic…really poor acceleration and going up hills was an awful experience. It met its end after being t boned while making a left turn. I suspect because it couldn’t get out of the way fast enough.
Cadillac’s one brilliant move with the Seville was pricing it above every other Caddy except the Series 75 limo. That put aside any question of it being a Cadillac Lite or a “jr edition” as Chrysler had once said.
One drive in a Peugeot 505 turbodiesel and you would never consider either of the others again.
As was noted above, it seems to me GM fell into the trap of believing the success MB had with their luxury diesels by mistake, and initially only in the US, could be replicated. Here in Europe diesels were for a very long time used only by cabbies and misers, no one would have thought of them as fit for a luxury car per se (and that was still the case here when the Seville diesel was introduced). The revolution only took place I believe when BMW, not MB, first came up with their performance diesels in the 80s and was completed once common rail and other high pressure injections systems + electronics released the diesel’s potential for high hp. The thing is, GM now has very powerful diesel engines but not in cars. From my PoV such an engine would make perfect sense in a Euro-spec Cadillac, but from GM’s PoV the minuscule sales the brand achieves here do not warrant developing such a model – and it is probably right, to judge from the Lancia Thema’s (a dieselized Chrysler 300C) “success”.
Wasn’t the 3.0 V6 VM Motori diesel supposed to be under the hood of a Cadillac ? From the days that Fiat and GM owned VM Motori. As we all know that engine ended up in various FCA products, from Maserati to Ram.
The first top-segment diesel car in Europe was the MB W140 S-Class 300 SD Turbo, introduced in 1992. The BMW E38 7-series and Audi A8 followed later, in 1996 (725 tds) and 1997 (2.5 TDI) respectively.
The BMW inline-6 turbodiesel was a revelation, absolutely.
BMW and MB were playing catchup in turbodiesel land they never led the pack.
Catch-up to whom? M-B was making reliable car diesels since the 1930s… The only other car maker I know offering a diesel back then was Hanomag but it gave up car production after WWII. Yes there were the French but you are not going to tell me M-B’s car diesels were inferior to Peugeot’s. As for BMW, when it came up with its high performance diesels there was NO ONE making such things. It practically created a new market.
This car was rendered irrelevant by the lighter, more spacious & more modern ’77 B-Body. Davis was right about that.
AFAIR, they wanted front-wheel drive for the original Seville, but there was no suitable drivetrain available until the ’79 E-Body.
They should have kept the ’76 style with the ’80 mechanicals.
You remembered correctly Roger. With the stub sub frame it probably wouldn’t have been too hard to convert the X-car to FWD using Toronado/Eldorado components. Bob Templin, Cadillac’s chief engineer said the following in an interview when he found out that they were to use the X-car chassis:
“But we said, ‘Okay, if that’s the best we can do, we’ll take a look at it,’ and we put together some running prototypes … put the Eldorado’s front-drive transaxle in them and borrowed the Olds 350 V-8 engine, and added all the things we thought a Cadillac ought to have, including GM’s first electronic fuel-injection system.
“We went to the engineering policy group to get the money. Now keep in mind that we’d proposed the new car as a front-wheel-drive, fuel-injected V-8 sedan. Well, it came back approved as a rear-drive, fuel-injected V-8 sedan. Why rear drive? Because GM didn’t have the plant capacity to build enough front-drive transaxles for the Seville’s projected sales. Those were limited to the Toronado and Eldorado.”
I agree, in 1980 had they kept with the same design theme established in 1976, made it more contemporary and used the updated chassis with perhaps some better chassis tuning, it would have been a much more successful car.
The 1980 Seville sold quite well in a wretched market for new cars. Its sales were down 20 percent from 1979 when the refreshed C body was down 50 percent. The market dropped pretty steadily from 10+M in 1979 to 8M in 1982. I would suggest that the Seville’s sales problems after 1980 had little to do with styling and everything to do with Cadillac’s horrific drivetrains. By 1984, the bustleback was back up to 40K per yr despite sharing a showroom with both the old RWD C body and the very well received new 1985 (spring 1984) FWD C body. AFAIK, 1985 was Cadillac’s all time sales peak, and the bustleback sold another 40K in its sixth year when it presumably was volume limited by red hot E body coupe sales.
Well we’ll probably have to agree to disagree. While you make some good points, there is a little more to it than what appears on the surface. I’d agree that the 1980-1985 Seville did okay in sales, considering the climate. That said, I doubt it stole many customers away from Mercedes, and I doubt there were many cross shoppers. If anything Cadillac was stealing it’s own traditional C-body customers from itself. The new Seville had a more spacious interior so traditional buyers would be more open to buying this car. Further, the car was marketed as being more efficient having either a diesel or fuel injection and of course FWD which was seen as the way of the future for that era. And when the 1985 FWD C-bodies came out, the Seville was a throw back for those unwilling to accept the new style Cadillac.
The styling took a turn in the wrong direction in my opinion. The bustle back was an “interesting” styling idea, but this was the wrong time to introduce it and was definitely not the direction of the future. I don’t those looking moving to German luxury cars would have seriously given this car a look. On top of that, the front end styling was too close to the traditional C-bod to make it a stand-out car.. Although the 1976-79 Seville had some significant flaws, at least it looked the part, which can’t be said for the bustle back Sevilles.
While the “bustle back” was a styling dead end, that fact apparently wasn’t obvious at the time given that Lincoln and Imperial also attempted it. (IMHO, Imperial pulled off the look best.) As far as the 1st gen being more valid as a Mercedes “fighter” than the 2nd gen, And the front end of the 2nd being to similar to the RWD “C” bodies., It was the 1st gen Seville that directly inspired the ’80-’84 “C” bodies. (Except the rear where the ’65-’66 seemed to be the inspiration). I personally never saw either as an attempt at going Euro, But more as a then modern take on traditional American styling.
The first generation was definitely influenced by Euro style, but obviously still a Cadillac first and foremost. The car was purposely designed to be cleaner, lacking excessive ornamentation and bright work and was even released initially in medium gray with a gray interior to be more appealing to younger buyers. The fact is Cadillac’s target was the 1973 Mercedes 280SEL during it’s development. The first generation car was clearly influenced by Mercedes.
The second generation car may have influenced designs at Lincoln and Chrysler but they were floundering even worse than Cadillac at this stage.
Regardless of what styling influenced what the front ends of the Cadillac’s were very close.
And the Fleetwood. Not much difference if you ask me, I am sure the average Joe would hardly be able to tell them apart from the front.
Mercedes has done just fine making all of its cars identifiable from the front.
You’re missing the point Hubba. How can you expect to make inroads with a group of customers who won’t look at a Cadillac if the car intended to grab their interest looks just like a traditional Cadillac?
I don’t think that there was tremendous anti-Cadillac prejudice or inertia in 1980. People still wanted to support the home team.
Note that MB and BMW buyers were quite happy to switch to Lexus in 1990, simply because it was novel, Toyota had earned their trust, and Lexus delivered a big V8 car with leather for the price of a 6 cylinder E class with vinyl. They weren’t unhappy with the Germans, exc that German cars were expensive and the dealers were a bit gougy.
Now, I don’t know how Cadillac can move its cars, simply because it’s about fifth on the shopping list instead of first or second. You’ve probably made a deal somewhere else before you get to the Cadillac store.
I will admit to not having driven one of these Sevilles since the early 1980’s; so my recollections and impressions might be fuzzy.
AT THE TIME, I thought it was a very elegant and fine driving (as well as looking, inside and out) car.
(I am commenting on the gas engine models; NOT the diesel).
My sister had a 1977 Seville, 2-tone blue, lightly optioned – leather, rear defroster and an 8-track were the only options IIRC (no cruise, no twilight, base hubcaps and no vinyl top) that she absolutely loved. I thought it was a very well-made car, as it always seemed screwed together well and never really let her down until it started getting older. My memory of riding in the back seat is one of horror, though. I would get sick every time I rode back there. It always seemed claustrophobic to me and the way that Seville rode just made me feel sick to my stomach. The front seat didn’t have nearly the same effect, though. She kept that car for about 6 years and replaced it with a Volvo 740 that she also loved and kept for over 10 years.
I think Cadillac was on the right track with the original Seville. Even though it had Nova underpinnings, one would never be able to tell. Unlike the Cimarron and the Lincoln Versailles which were disguised as luxury cars but easily distinguishable from their lowly brethren, the Seville had a classy air to it. The true Cadillac dash made it fit in with the reat of the line-up. Ad it always felt like a little Caddy should.
Amazing that one import-targeting product line could create two crappy Sevilles, a Cinnimon, and a Caddy that required Zig Zags.
I remember riding in one of those “slated back, Seville’s”.it may have been a diesel. Been too long to remember for sure.
I’m thinking the owner was talking about the “good gas mileage” though.
Grrr! “Slanted back”.
Interesting that the “Cadillac Diesel” badge in the lead photo isn’t on straight…
C/D: “A diesel engine that could change America’s mind about diesel engines”
Well, it certainly did, just not in the way GM hoped for…
Hmmm… How things can change in six years, the diesel is now practically dead or dying on the vine because it is A Very Bad Thing (so we’re told). Scrap everything I wrote back in 2016.