(first posted 12//2017) Heavily criticized from the point of its introduction, through the years and into the present day, the 1986-1991 Cadillac Seville was a car with many shortcomings. From its forgettable, anonymous styling to its overemphasized shrunken proportions to its initially anemic engines, the third generation Seville was largely unremarkable in most respects. Without the wreath-and-crest, it could have been just about any car out there at the time — not typically the image Cadillac buyers sought.
Things weren’t much better inside either, with a clear (and failed) attempt at fusing modern 1980s high technology (no pun intended) with traditional Cadillac interior virtues. Something about button-tufted leather seats and casket-pull door handles with an all-digital instrument cluster, pod-like dash design, and Texas Instruments-style buttons strewn about just didn’t work very effectively together.
With initial sales at only about 50% the volume of its predecessor’s last two years, Cadillac did make a few meaningful updates over the car’s run in attempt to increase its competitiveness, most notably in the powertrain department. Premiering with a 4.1L V8 providing just 130 horsepower and 200 lb-ft torque, a 4.5L V8 arrived in 1988 making 155 horsepower and 240 lb-ft torque, with multiport fuel injection upping output to 180 horsepower/245 lb-ft torque in 1990. By its final year the Seville boasted a much more confident 200 horsepower and 275 lb-ft torque from its new 4.9L V8.
The most notable addition to this generation Seville was the introduction of the STS “Seville Touring Sedan” model in 1988, a model which would come to account for the majority of Seville sales in succeeding generations, and eventually supersede the Seville outright.
Meant to give the Seville a bit more of the European executive sedan vibe that luxury car buyers were increasingly preferring in the 1980s, the STS featured a retuned suspension and steering ratio for better handling, special alloy wheels, and a few other styling features that gave it a more understated, business-like appearance. Unfortunately, a lack of the regular Seville’s gingerbread only increased the car’s anonymity in appearance.
1989 STS models gained antilock brakes, further monochromatic and “Euro” exterior styling elements, and most notably, an exclusive interior featuring upgraded leather seating surfaces, armrests, and door panels, along with high-gloss burl wood trim, increased adjustments to the front sports seats, and rear bucket seats with a full center console.
Minor refinements came each year both to the regular Seville and the STS, but in many ways this was a lost cause vehicle for Cadillac, lacking acceptance and appreciation over its run, and leaving little in the way of a lasting legacy. Faced with far more criticisms than praise during and after its production span, the third generation Seville, if anything, gave Cadillac all the more reason to make its successor significantly better in every respect.
The costlier STS, which did not gain any serious performance upgrades over the standard Seville, was never a very convincing European touring sedan competitor, something only highlighted by this 1990 example’s “Phaeton Roof”. Never breaking more than 3,000 units per year, total STS production of this generation reached just 8,409 units.
While it may not be the most lambasted Cadillac of all time (I’m looking at you Cimarron), the third generation (1986-1991) Seville, specifically the 1988-1991 STS, is a top contender for the spot of least distinguished Cadillac of all time.
Photographed: Downtown Crossing, Boston, Massachusetts – November 2017
1986-1991 Cadillac Seville (GM Deadly Sin)
These things were pretty sad to start with but. This one is down right depressing in this condition
No, I think that would be the late 90s early 00s Deville,Brendan.
The blob shape, nondescript grille, anonymous profile and a half hearted stab at Cadillac’s signature taillights make those a lot likelier candidate, I think.
A bare upgrade from a Chevrolet.
The Seville’s problem was it was still an 80s take on the Brougham era. Schizoid.
I’d rather have one of these than one of those. And no Northstar.
I must respectfully disagree regarding the 2000-2005 DeVille.
I always thought it was a successful for the times update of a vehicle that had dragged out the same styling language for the past three decades, growing very tiresome looking by the late-1990s.
When it came out, I found it very elegant and imposing, and don’t feel it looked “un-Cadillac” or very blob-like. The taillights were very distinctive as well, as I recall it was the first American car with LED taillights.
I will say though that it is a design that hasn’t aged as gracefully as its DTS successor, which boasted sharper, more traditional lines.
I like the ’00-’05 Deville. The Deville previous to it was fat and unappealing. The design language of that era looked much better on the last of the RWD Fleetwoods because of the extra length.
+2
+3.
The DTS had some nice detailing but as a whole, it actually managed to look more upright and dated than the DeVille… The Art & Science cues didn’t work on the DeVille body. The ’00 DeVille was, as Brendan said, an attempt to avoid another retread of a very dated design language.
I have also never been a huge fan of the 2000’s Deville/DTS. t seemed to me that GM was trying to clone the Benz S-Class and preserve Cadillac styling elements at the same time, and the result came off as extremely bland. It didn’t help that 90% of them were the usual boring beige or grey of the decade. A friend had one and I rode in it a number of times; my impression was that it was a competent car but once again very bland. That was also my take on early Lexus LS400’s, so maybe that was another target that GM used for the DTS.
I once drove a 1988 Seville rental car. Better to drive than to look at.
I think that this car should take top honors away from the Cimarron. The Cimmy was a pure phone-in job, it was evident that Cadillac had a small budget and a short deadline to work with on the car. It was sad, but in an understandable kind of way.
This car is worse because they really tried. They spent a lot of money and had a lot of time and this was the best they could do. Which is inexcusable. And which shows just how badly off GM had gotten by the ’80s.
I have to agree with you on this one. The universally hated Cimmaron was phoned in, and a tarted up Cavalier at Cadillac prices was more a marketing gambit than this car. When this was a volume seller, and the redesign was so wrong, and it was continued for 5 years shows how bad they botched it. This, and the crap coupe version El Dorado, cemented Cadillac as the car of choice for retired bookkeepers and made them poison to the following generations. Nobody under 50 would be seen driving one, let alone think of buying one. They Buicked Cadillac, so to speak, and made it the choice of the elderly and killed any hope of it being an aspirational choice.
+1. This was their flagship. It’s just inexcusable.
Actually, I think the 3rd generation Seville is the car that the Cimarron SHOULD have been.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t actually like the ’86-91 Seville. But as for the general design, I think that if Cadillac had done a better job with the interior and drivetrain, and had introduced it sometime in the mid 1980s as a smaller and Euro-inspired car — which was the Cimarron’s initial mission — it would have been well received.
But as a Seville, and as it was produced, it was a dud.
I’ve often thought the same thing. I’d roll back the timing even earlier though, and have this car introduced for 1980. That way, it would be first with the “thin pillar formal look” and precede the FWD A-bodies and N-Bodies. It would have seem related to the FWD X-Bodies the way the first Seville seemed related to RWD X-Bodies.
The bustle back Seville was a bust for reaching European intenders, but this car just *might* have had a distant shot in 1980 when the design would have seemed fresher.
But even then, it’s not great, as you point out.
I think that Cadillac started off with the intent of the first generation Seville being an entry level Cadillac. This might have worked if the Nova body had not been upgraded to the point of no longer being a Nova body and cost of production (which would have depended on sales, which was at best a guess) was going to be higher than first planned. Once they made it into a Fleetwood model, they would not have been able to make it an entry level Cadillac, which was the idea behind the Cimarron.
The idea of the original Seville being planned as an “entry level” Cadillac is ridiculous. Cadillac didn’t need a cheaper model. Cadillac sales volume boomed in the 70s. Cadillac needed a car specifically to compete with luxury imports, which generally were smaller and more expensive than the regular Cadillac lines.
I don’t think they started off with the idea that it would be the top of the line Fleetwood though. I think that the original plan was more of a smaller de Ville, something nicer than the Calais.
I have not seen any documentation on what they planned, and what anyone thinks is pure speculation without said documentation.
I thought the drive train was fine on mine but I had the 5.0 instead of the 4.6. The only thing was even with the price of gas being a little lower back then, You better get ready to tripple that bill when you take that car on vacation. I bought the one I had used. I don’t know if they put the 5.0 in it or it came that way. Now the trans did drag a little bit changing gears but if you needed to get to 100 quick, You wouldn’t even had to floor that car and it would get you there in a hurry. I just couldn’t keep a water pump on it and I got irritated with it. If it wouldn’t have been for that, I woulda kept it because it was good driving, felt like you were floating on air and seats were comfortable even if you did burn the hell out of your ass on hot days and you were in a hurry to get somewhere.
I think you’re on to something solid there James! I never really thought of it that way, but your argument is convincing enough for me to agree.
I think you may be cutting the Cimarron too much slack. Image if the Four Seasons Resorts decided they needed a beachfront property with an Econolodge on the site. Rather than taking the time to tear it down and creating a legitimate high-end resort, they just slapped their name on the Econolodge and offered better bed linens and towels along with high Four Seasons prices. Such a move would do terrible damage to their brand reputation, probably as detrimental as if they spent too much money developing an all-new “super luxury” resort that resembled a mid-grade Marriott. Either move would be horrific (and idiotic) for a premiere luxury brand.
Brendan,
My former doctor back home in Bennington, VT had a 1990 Eldorado that he bought new and somehow managed to keep running for 18 years. By the time he finally put it out to pasture in early 2008, it had 225k miles on it but had been through three transmissions and one top-end rebuild. He loved that car but I always thought it was a pile of trash.
I kinda like it
GM misread the luxury car market in that era, just like Chrysler blew it in the early 60s with the downsizing and weird styling of their lines.
I’d drive a late 70s square Seville, or a bustle-back Seville in a heartbeat, but these little boxy ones are awful.
I’ve often wondered how many Lincoln cars were “sold” by these various Cadillac stupidities-in-action during this time period.
Lincoln did not have a similar sized car available, just the TC and Continental, so the competitors were the K-Car based Imperial and the Acura, Lexus and Infiniti models from Japan, plus those who stepped it up to the German offerings.
A lot of people starting buying LS400s right then, and never considered another American car make again.
Yeah, I don’t think these sold many Lincolns, but the DeVille and withering-on-the-vine aspect of the Brougham probably caused some folks to walk over to the Lincoln-Mercury dealership, in particular after 1990 with the new Town Car.
But they certainly were bad enough “import fighters” to cause successful 80s boomers not even to consider them as a reasonable alternative to the Mercedes, BMW, and Audi cars. So in a way, they certainly “sold” those to the desired demographic.
I doubt serious import buyers even looked at these. Old school American car buyers could have the RWD Brougham if they wanted a Caddy or went Lincoln or if they wanted old school American comfort in a smaller package (especially if they wanted to save some money) could go New Yorker or Imperial.
These just look sad because they look so much like a tarted up Chevy or Pontiac, even if they offered more.
Yes, they did…two, actually: the Continental sedan and the MkVII coupe.
My Dad had one of these in the early 2000’s, a 1989 model purchased at the local Honda dealer. Honda said it was a one-owner, and we know that was true because my folks met up with the original owners in a parking lot not long after, and they said they’d bought the car new and traded it for a new Honda and how were you liking it blah blah blah.
Car had been repainted it’s original pearlescent white and looked new from the outside, but inside with another story. Cracked red leather and many loose trim pieces, including broken pieces in the center console. When Dad was looking at it I told him don’t buy it because the repairs would break him. He had just retired and had only a small pension as income. Well, I was right. $5,000 and 2 yrs later he ditched it in bitter disappointment. Total POS and it was the worst car he’d ever owned.
My Dad passed away from cancer last Feb. RIP Dad.
It’s interesting to see a state inspection sticker on the windshield in the lower right corner. When these cars were new, Massachusetts used to put the stickers on just these Sevilles, on the drivers doorwindow, top-right corner next to the b pillar. There was something about that windsheild that stickers weren’t supposed to be applied to it. Maybe something to do with a ductless defroster coated windsheild. Probably put there by an uninformed inspection mechanic.
There was a plastic coating on the inside of the windshield, to protect occupants from facial (or other) lacerations in the event of an accident.
For most of the ‘80s it seemed that GM tried everything it could to make the point that there were better, less expensive alternatives to putting airbags into its cars. One way they did that was to design the interior of the car so that an unbelted passenger could hit the surfaces during a crash, and walk away with minimal injuries. The anti-laceration windshield is one example of these efforts, as is the large dash pad on the passenger side of the C4 Corvette.
And the annoying door-mounted seatbelts that they used well into the 90s. (To be fair, VW, Honda, and others used those as well.)
Heh, those came about because they were legally defined as “passive restraints.” The earlier regulation from the late ’80s didn’t specifically mandate airbags, just passive restraints. The hypothesis was that one could leave the seatbelt buckled and simply get in and out of the car since it was mounted to the door.
As it turned out, they were also a huge risk in crash situations if the door popped open, but…
It wasn’t just GM. Ford in the mid-1980s was lobbying hard for adoption of a national seat belt law, and to that effect they produced a video around ’85 or so explaining the company’s position on the matter. Ford, GM, and pretty much all the OEMs were afraid of government regulation mandating new technologies, much as they had done with CAFE and emissions regulations, that would add big cost burdens and once again put them behind the 8-ball in R&D costs.
The thrust of it was that seat belts were still far and away more reliable than any of the other systems devised by the OEMs, and that none of the companies had yet come up with an effective supplemental system that could be installed in a cost-effective manner. They argued it was unwise to mandate technologies that were not being demonstrated to have good results and add that massive cost burden to the customer. They showed their own work with airbags, VW’s padded dash and padded knee restraint in a (IIRC) Vanagon, and a couple others.
They then went on to explain how having intrusive technologies would be pointless, as customers had proven they’d just defeat and disable intrusive technologies entirely. They cited attempts at interlocks that would prevent the car being shifted into gear without a fastened seatbelt that proved wildly unpopular.
While one could argue about whether or not the National Motor Safety Law that mandated seatbelts nationwide was an infringement on personal liberty or an affront to the Constitution or a perfectly valid exercise of government power in pursuit of the general welfare, I came away from watching that one (as I made protection copies for the archives) convinced by Ford’s arguments, based on my understanding of early 1980s technology and the state of the art at the time.
A Deadly Sin. Whether it’s forgivable remains to be seen as Cadillac turns out some fine cars in the present…but hasn’t yet completely shaken off the memories of these old demons.
Escalade, of course, is the exception.
Certainly is a Deadly Sin. Even Deadlier in this STS form (less than 9000 made in three years??) but this article covers the whole sorry 3rd gen Seville:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1986-1991-seville-gms-deadly-sin-21-and-to-think-that-i-owned-one/
Great post nonetheless, Brendan. And great find!
I rented a ’91 from National’s Emerald Aisle, an STS with 15 miles and drove from LA to San Jose, then back to LA on PCH. The car handled well and was fun to drive on PCH, but two things got to me…first was the wood. Cadillac bragged that the STS had more wood inside that any competitor. Uh, OK. But the rest of the interior, namely the dash was unchanged from the standard Seville. Second, the tighter suspension worked well, but the resonance it sent through the body made the interior vibrate so that it felt like after a few more miles, there would be lots and lots of rattles. It was a great rental (at Hewlett Packard mid size rate), but I couldn’t imagine spending that kind of money to buy it.
It’s interesting that the “special” and “exclusive” STS wound up in a rental lot, just like any other run-of-the-mill car at that time. Of the paltry 8,409 STS models sold during this generation, I wouldn’t be surprised that lots of them (especially 1991 models) went to rental fleets. The average Octogenarian customer for the Seville would have balked at the higher price (and lack of chrome, tufted leather and pillowy ride) for the STS, while import intenders would hardly be able to suppress their laughter. So this 1st Gen STS may have had its best market at the rental counters.
My 1990 Cadillac catalog shows that the STS interior is not tufted but rather a nicer plain leather interior. I am not sure about whether the optional Phaeton roof was available on the STS or just the plain Seville.
Cadillac owners came to like the STS (but perhaps this was after the 1992 redesign) and I think that the reception of the STS designation led Cadillac to think that a three letter name for the whole lineup would be well received.
The button-tufted leather was only available on the regular Seville and Seville Elegante. I used the image in reference to what I mentioned in the second paragraph regarding this generation Seville as a whole. The button tufted leather seats was just too good not to use.
The tufted seats were popular with Oldsmobile owners. The 1998 through 2004 Seville sales averaged about the same as the 86-91 models. While sales of this generation Seville was not good, they were not all that bad either. The dash/instrument panel was quite bad, not just for the Seville/Eldorado, but both the Riviera and Toronado were not better.
Nobody has mentioned how much this looked like a base N-body sedan. When I first saw it, I assumed it was N-based, and that made it as bad as a J-body Cimarron.
From a distance the Seville did look a lot like a Pontiac Grand Am or other N-bodies, but if you look at them from a close distance they are quite different, the B-pillar particularly.
Reading these articles it always amazes me how far we’ve come in terms of horsepower per liter. Only 130 HP from a 4.1L V8? My Corolla makes more horsepower than that with less than half the displacement.
The 4100 started off with 125 HP. The Allante’s tuned port version was rated at 170 HP though. Then the 4.5 L version was rated at 200 on the Allante, but only 180 for the rest.
Ugh. What a waste of materials. My theory remains that Cadillac should have pared down its offerings and:
(1) focused on making a better FWD car (or RWD but more modern) combining the Seville-DeVille-Eldorado–FWD Fleetwood-Allante in a touring, non Brougham trim and the 4.5/4.9 V8. This car would move Cadillac forward out of old man territory and allow it to at least try to compete with foreign luxury.
(2) retained the traditional buyers it feared losing simply by keeping but improving upon the Brougham, which they liked and which didn’t need to be significantly changed other than (a) a better engine, perhaps an earlier introduction of the L05 that was in the Silverado at the time (b) four wheel disc ABS (c) increased evolution in exterior design over the same chassis
Instead, they produced 5 FWD models–accurately described above as ‘schizoid’ with a confused modern 80s vs. traditional buyer identity–all of which went to waste because as separate models they were less than the sum of their parts…and did nothing at all to improve the Brougham (like Lincoln did in 1990–Caddy could have done that in ’86 or ’87 once they decided to keep producing it) even though it checked all the boxes for the old-school customer. A real ADD approach.
GN,
I was amazed that the Emerald Aisle had Caddies, Bonneville SSEs, even Riattas, your choice at the mid size rate. And they had no miles, like often under 1,000. I checked and something like 55% of GM production went to lease/rental customers in the 1st quarter of ’91. They must have turned the rental fleet six times a year. Great time to rent.
Wild West,
I think the STS seats were the Cimarron seats!
this is the STS 1990 interior. The Cimarron should be so nice.
and this is a Cimarron interior
The Cimarron seats were used in the ’82-’85 Eldorado Touring Coupe.
Someone ODed on French seams in the STS.
“Just make small cars, period” was the edict from GM HQ.
And “interior styling is what will sell”.
😛
This car finished bottom of the pack in the first comparison test “Car and Driver” ran with the Lexus LS400 and Infiniti Q45 in 1989, and I can see why. It was too small and nondescript to compete with the European and then new Japanese rivals – kind of like matching a Corolla with an S-Class. Thank God the successor was miles better, at least on paper. The 1992 STS was to my mind the best looking modern Caddy I had seen in my life.
During the time frame that Cadillac produced these abominations (1986-91), Mercedes-Benz introduced the W124 E-Class, Honda introduced the Acura brand with the Legend. The BMW 5-series was in the transition phase from the E28 to the E34 models. And finally, Toyota introduced the Lexus brand with the LS 400. All of those cars were better than the Caddy, which appealed to the AARP crowd. The younger folks (under 50 at that time) were turning to BMW, Mercedes and later Acura and Lexus.
When those ‘Honey, I shrunk the (Seville)’ were exported to Europe, they had one of the worst modifications to comply with ECE regulations.
The headlamps were taken from Audi 80 (B3) along with custom chrome bezel and turn signal indicators (I can’t put a finger on its donor car). What the photo below didn’t show was the glaring gap between the headlamp and bezel at top due to the Audi headlamps curving upward steeply. The whole setup was shambolic.
No wonder Germans sneered at punt-sized Seville…
When Allante was exported to Europe, it had proper ECE headlamps manufactured by Magneti Marelli, which were also fitted to Eldorado and Seville during their final model years.
Yet, you can see the Allante headlamps didn’t really fit well. Lot of gaps between headlamp and sheetmetal…
Yuck! How many did they sell in Europe – more than a few dozen?
Also, this reminds me of Chrysler exporting to Europe Fifth Avenues that were slow sellers in America (until, ironically, they became popular again thanks to GM’s downsizing!)
Ironically, this version of Seville is the one I have never seen in Europe while I see all other versions once in a while.
And here I’d completely forgotten about those miserable turds… wish I hadn’t been reminded of them.
“These new Caddy Sevilles are boxy and small like BMW, so we’ll sell tons of them to younger buyers” GM HQ 1985
Buyers “WT*?”
There’s an Eldorado of this era in the new Portugal, The Man music video, doing some sick e-brake drifting.
I can’t help but be reminded of NASA’s use of the STS acronym for the space shuttle missions – STS was Space Transportation System, and each launch had a successive number. I was agonizingly near Cape Kennedy for STS 5’s launch in 1982. Heady days indeed for NASA. That GM would co-opt that acronym as a short form for Seville Touring Sedan just doesn’t seem right, to this day.
Y’know that oft repeated anecdote about how Cadillac director John Howell kept a picture of the Cimarron in his office with the caption “lest we forget” to remind himself where the brand could end up if they weren’t careful?
Yeah, I think doing the same thing with one of these 86-91 Non Brougham Cadillacs would also be just as fitting.
Lincoln must’ve been laughing in piles of cash from all the Town Cars that were sold because of these.
Of course Cadillac did do the STS name justice with the fourth gen. Even if that too had its massive shortcomings.
Ah Brendan, I couldn’t avoid commenting on this!
These were deservedly a huge flop. Being smaller, nimbler and better handling than its predecessor was a plus, but the initial 4.1 V8 and the Irv Rybicki styling really did a number on these. The STS was a step in the right direction and its 4.5 (and later 4.9) V8 was an improvement. But Rybicki styled these to look small and in that respect, he succeeded. They’re awkwardly proportioned, even if the detailing (grille and headlights, for example) is alright. The interior is also sterile. The acres of wood afforded to the STS helped spruce it up a bit but the seats were flat and the dashboard just a pile of boxes, almost a redux of the ’78 A-Body interior. Digital instruments in a sporty sedan was also a faux pas.
I covered in my article how badly Cadillac missed the mark with these. Still, they fascinate me as they are so widely disliked. I’d love one for my classic car garage.
By the way, that vinyl roof is vile. No Seville should have a vinyl roof.
Sales of the first generation Seville averaged 55,000 the last two years of production. On that basis the Seville was a big flop for the second generation and the last generation. The fourth generation did OK, but not great. The third generation was worst, but not that much worse.
As a top of the line Cadillac it was too small. If it had been a cheaper platform it would have been a good Cimarron, but I don’t think GM could have made something similar for the 1982 model year.
The Cimarron was to be a Mercedes 190 & 3 Series BMW fighter. What I read, Caddy came late or whatever reasons had to take the J Car, which was pretty far along at the time. Ford in the 1980’s also had a bronze tinted instant clearing windshield, that wasn’t supposed to have any stickers on them.
The Cimarron came out before the 190. Adam at Rare Classic Cars said it was originally going to be on the Citation platform (something I never read at the time), but that initially sold so well they didn’t think they’d have enough production capacity for another model, therefore J, with little time or money for revisions as dealers were desperate for a small car in ’79-80.
In the mid 70s, Lincoln offered an electric defrost windshield with a transparent film of real gold. That idea migrated to lesser models eventually.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, Cadillac was in a tight spot at this time. Their cars had to be smaller and more fuel efficient. Their cars had to be more cleanly styled and appeal to younger buyers. They had to accomplish all this without completely alienating their traditional buyers.
The original RWD Seville wasn’t anything that special, it was smaller, and the exterior was clean. The interior was nice enough, but the dash was too plain without any instruments except for a speedo and fuel “gage.” It lacked a set of good bucket seats and a console, these would have helped define it as a personal luxury model.
The ’91 model hit the target on size and efficiency, and later engines provided enough power. The styling was pretty GM generic, but the qualities that had defined Cadillac for decades, large size, aggressive over the top styling, and baroque interiors, couldn’t find a home on these modern models. So how to give them Cadillac style?
It seems as though the designers had to slog their way through several model years until GM gave them the green light, “make them bigger again!” This seemed to help a lot.
Cadillacs from the late teens have become smaller once more, but it appears that the designers have a better understanding of how to translate Cadillac style to the current generation.
I think to some extent the Seville was boxed in by the downsized Fleetwood, which wasn’t really that much bigger, but there were other contemporary sedans in the same size class as the Seville (188.2 inches on a 108-inch wheelbase) that looked much, much better. The worst thing is that the Seville suffered the same awkward relationship of backlight to rear wheelhouse as the E-bodies and N-bodies, which made it look like the car had been rear-ended.
After Cimarron was killed, Cadillac was selling 4 sizes of cars at inverted price levels. The biggest was the cheapest, and the smallest (Allante) the most expensive. Crazy!
I guess this was designed for a target that moved. The ‘permanent fuel crisis’ turned out not to be permanent at all, with the result that the car was too small. I get that.
What I just don’t get is the looks.
I think you would have had to have been a case-hardened Cadillac nut to buy one.
Love the Seville’s. When it comes to Cadillac’s, I’ve owned (and still own one) more of this model than any other Caddy’s. There’s just something about them that I really like.
I’ve owned several of the first gen (1976 to 1979) and they were great cars. I also had several of the 1980 to 1985’s. The 1980 had the better engine and all, but the 1984 and then 1985 I had were nicer to drive although with less power. Years later I then picked up a gorgeous 1989 white STS with the most comfortable seats I’ve ever had in any car. I purchased it in 2011 from a dealer in Seattle (WA) and drove it home to Los Angeles area without a glitch. I drove that same STS from LA to Missoula, MT for a wedding later that year. Then in 2012 I drove it to IL where I placed it in storage for the time. In 2013 I had moved to Nashville, TN and I picked it up and drove it to Nashville. Sadly, when I decided that I had to move back to LA, I realized it was time to sell it and a guy from Florida purchased it sight unseen. In total, I drove that STS more than 10,000 miles and it never gave me issues and was superior to anything I’ve been in for comfort.
Now today I own a pristine 1986 (first year for this gen) with the weak but smooth 4.1 V8. I’m the second owner and it has 22,800 true miles. Like the 1989 STS, this car is a total joy to drive and it’s more quiet, rides better and feels substantial compared to many cars of today. No road trips with this one (yet), but I’d gladly jump in and drive from the west coast to east coast without one second of hesitation. These cars truly deserve more credit that they get.
I agree about the awkward (Citroën like) relationship of backlight to greenhouse mentioned above. Cadillac did not have the luxury to experiment with odd proportions. GM also should have dropped the distinction between ‘regular’ and ‘Euro’ models. Just split the difference. Firm ride and handling, but not Honda firm. Firm seats, but not Honda firm. Less chrome, but not monochromatic. Just offer one model -just like there was one Legend- and pull the band-aid off.
A true Cadillack. 🙂
Never was a fan of these or the initial C-Body FWD Deville. The 1989ish restyle of the Deville made it better. As a kid I remember seeing a lot of Devilles not so many of these.
Here is a question. Couldn’t have GM incorporated the smaller FWD Cadillac (and the Riviera and Toro) into the GM-10 or a second generation A Body? All these platforms (some of which really didn’t sell well) had to have drained resources.