(first posted 9/26/2015) As chronicled on the pages of Car and Driver, arguably America’s most irreverent and entertaining car magazine in the late 1970s, a few short years saw the first generation Seville go from being a car that could have easily been transformed into something genuinely world class (C/D showed us how!) into the diesel-powered, drooped-butt throwback machine that could in no way be reconciled with the evolving desires of luxury car buyers. Tragic for GM’s flagship brand, but these period piece articles make for entertaining reading today.
As a car crazy pre-teen and teenager in the late 1970s and early 1980s, one of the best sources of information for my passion was the automotive buff books. Compared with today’s prenagers and teenagers, my entertainment choices were a bit more limited. The phones were connected to the wall, and there was only one number for everyone in the house. While I packed in as many episodes of Charlie’s Angels as I could, the programming schedule and choices were dictated by the stations—CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS and one independent (Channel 26 in my native New Orleans), not by me setting a device or scanning NetFlix.
Personal computers were still a novelty, there was no public internet. Playing video games meant traveling to an arcade loaded down with quarters. So information about cars, provided by the car enthusiast press, became a centerpiece of my free time. While the Malaise Era was a tough time for any car enthusiast, the automotive press made the best of a bad situation, with clever writing and coverage of cars designed to keep the enthusiast flames burning. In 1976, I was given a subscriptions to Car and Driver as well as Motor Trend. It was one of the best gifts I’ve ever gotten. I eagerly awaited the arrival of the mail when I knew the next month’s issues were being released. I devoured each issue from cover to cover. I adored the wise and witty points of view offered by some fantastic writers such as David E. Davis, Brock Yates, P.J. O’Rourke and Jean Lindamood.
Though I am far from being a hoarder, I kept every issue of my car magazines. My passion for collecting had been ignited. Whenever I went to the K&B drugstore, I’d look for any auto related titles on their magazine rack. In the summer, I’d keep an eye out for the New Car Preview Guides, and then in the Fall I’d watch for Auto Guide and Auto Test from the folks at Consumer Guide (not to be confused with the more strident Consumer Reports). Given that I was a huge David E. Davis fan, I obviously had to be a charter subscriber when he launched his own magazine, Automobile. My stash continued to grow, and I just kept adding boxes to keep everything.
As I got older, and was lucky enough to find a wonderful spouse whose virtues include being supportive of my car craziness, I decided to augment my collection. Thanks to Hemmings, I was able to locate a collection of Motor Trend magazines starting with their inaugural issue in 1949. Similarly, I found Car and Driver issues dating back to when they first changed over from Sports Cars Illustrated in 1961. A lucky encounter in a used bookstore introduced me to Road Test, a much more obscure auto magazine from Southern California that accepted no advertising initially, thereby ensuring editorial independence.
While I still subscribe to the print editions of all the buff books, I must admit I most enjoy what I consider to be the golden era of automotive journalism from days gone by. I love pulling out and rereading old issues. They are a wonderful lens into both the automotive landscape as well as the culture of the times.
Curbside Classic has become my new outlet for my automotive passion, and it is so enjoyable to be part of a community of like-minded enthusiasts. With encouragement from Paul and inspiration from YOHAI71 who just started posting from his Road & Track collection, I figured I’d jump into the fray and share some excerpts from my collection as well. I’m guessing that if there were ever an audience who would enjoy these automotive blasts from the past, they’d be on this site!
So to kick off, I’m taking a cue from Calibrick, who noted that he’d love to see the August 1977 Car and Driver article on the “Super Seville.” That was the 1976 Cadillac Seville that Car and Driver modified to create a more credible Mercedes-Benz challenger. While the buff books were well aware of the Seville’s humble X-body origins, and they decried the fact that it was simply more of a small traditional Cadillac rather than a truly new kind of Cadillac, they were still intrigued enough to want to play around with the car and see what was possible. It was an exciting beginning, and a way to showcase how close Cadillac was to redefining American luxury cars. It makes for a great read, and really gets you thinking about what might have been if Cadillac had dared to take a different path in the late 1970s/early 1980s.
It is interesting to note that the subject vehicle belonged to a presumably young(ish) male executive in Southern California, proof that not all Sevilles were bought by dowagers wanting a Cadillac that was easier to park.
The structural reinforcements required to provide the X-body with a more upmarket feel for its transformation to a K-body made for a pretty heavy car (light only in comparison to the dreadnought weights of Cadillac’s biggies). So Car and Driver focusing a lot on lightening the car and slightly improving the front/rear weight balance from 55/45 to 54/46. Cadillac’s engineers surely were sharpening their pencils and taking notes.
These engineers actually had so much of what they needed to make a more world class Seville right at their fingertips courtesy of the vast GM parts bin. Simply deploying different weighting for the small steel torsion bar within the Saginaw power-steering gear could have made a tremendous difference. The Pontiac Trans Am, noted for its excellent steering feel, provided the perfect part that could fit right in, and fly below any bean counter’s radar.
The total cost of the modifications was $3,250 ($12,781 adjusted), bringing the total price of the car up to $16,069. ($63,193 adjusted) That price was not too much higher the Mercedes-Benz 280 SE 4.5 that inspired the modifications and would have cost $10,076 ($57,447 adjusted) in 1972 (the last year that model was available). Plus the Super Seville was far less than the car which replaced the 280SE 4.5 in the Mercedes-Benz line-up: the 1976 450SE set buyers back $18,333 ($76,785 adjusted). So, with some smart massaging and a fairly reasonable investment, the Seville was transformed into a car that could hold its own while canyon carving with what was arguably the world’s best sedan at that time. The future for Cadillac’s baby suddenly looked pretty interesting!
Cadillac did in fact offer a special edition of the Seville starting in 1978. That car was the Seville Elegante, and it kinda-sorta adopted a few elements from the Super Seville. For starters, genuine wire wheels, the ne plus ultra of 70s style that were prominently featured on the Super Seville, were standard Elegante fare. Inside, buckets seats (sadly a far cry from anything Recaro-based) and perforated leather were standard, along with a leather-wrapped steering wheel and a center console between the front seats. Striking two-tone paint with no vinyl top rounded out the package. Pricing was at super premium levels, with the package adding a whopping $2,600 ($9,503) to the $14,267 ($52,148 adjusted) price of the base Seville.
Even though the Elegante was purely a cosmetic package, it still demonstrated that there was a market for a special, more expensive Seville. According to the Standard Catalog of Cadillac, around 5,000 Elegantes were sold, representing 9% of the 56,985 1978 Sevilles produced. Not bad for a very pricey specialized option package, and indicative that there was likely a good market for more Super Sevilles.
Hopes were running high then for the redesigned Seville due for 1980. The Elegante in 1978 had only scratched the superficial surface of what was possible. GM was the master of downsizing, with outstanding results on their full-size cars, very good results on the smaller mid-size models. The dramatic new X-cars were a smash hit right out of the gate. With that kind of action at the world’s largest carmaker, the future looked bright for how well the next Seville would turn out. Surely Cadillac had taken notes and feedback from both Cadillac owners and import buyers. They had worked with Car and Driver on the Super Seville and gotten some great input on making a great new-generation luxury car that could handle the road as well as it cosseted its passengers.
Undoubtedly, the new Seville would be lighter and more nimble, with modern space efficient packaging and clean international styling, offering even better ride and handling characteristics while coddling all occupants in a tastefully tailored and very luxurious interior. A true world-beater from America’s preeminent luxury car brand, right? Unfortunately, the sneak previews were alarming. Maybe the strange renderings and lumpy prototypes were a huge ruse designed to make competitors complacent…
When the annual new car issues for October 1979 arrived, Car and Driver’s Larry Griffin was as kind as he could reasonably be in his first review of the 1980 Seville. Reading between the lines, the write-up was about as lukewarm a response as you could give in a long-lead puff piece covering the new product from a major advertiser. And as usual for that time period, Car and Driver was pitch perfect in their assessment. While 1980 model year marked the beginning of a phenomenally disastrous decade for Cadillac, it ushered in the start of yet another outstanding year for the writers and editors of Car and Driver. Their wit and wisdom intact, they quickly moved on from covering Cadillac’s baroque bomb and focused on the next wave of cars they knew would be interesting to enthusiasts of all ages.
Great story. I read a lot of car magazines as a youth in the ’70’s and ’80’s, and the idea of making a great sleeper out of a Cadillac would have started the gears turning in my brain. Heck, it still does. Thanks for the classic articles…and keep ’em coming!
Am I alone in thinking the drawing of what the 1980 Seville rear-end may have looked like was actually very nice looking? I think the tail lamps were sharp in that drawing.
Great write-up on a great car project, too. I had never seen this before and it was really cool what they did to that Seville!
That was from the Consumer Guide ’80 New Car Preview, which I had when it was new, reading it in my summer-camp bedroom. All-new cars were represented by drawings (which usually proved accurate); facelifts were airbrushed onto photos of the current model (and often turned out to be wrong). I do wonder where they got info on future models, which was not widely available back then.
Just in time for my morning coffee. Many thanks GN!
The sad thing about the second generation Seville was that it was essentially a clean-sheet car that must have cost as much to develop and produce as a great car would have. While the first Eldorado was cynicism incarnate, the second one had fully independent suspension, 4-wheel disc brakes, and a platform that didn’t need to serve the cheapest customers in the country. It might have even been cheaper if it had been rear wheel drive. The half-shafts wouldn’t have cost quite as much to offer similar service lives. The transmissions would have been the ones they sold millions of. That would have more than paid for a driveshaft. All FWD promised was a little better gas mileage. Thanks CAFE.
The FWD on the second generation Seville is not a transaxle, so I doubt that there is much, if any, reduction in fuel consumption. The transmission is basically the RWD transmission split so that the torque converter is behind the engine and then a chain connects to the rest of the transmssion, which is connected to the axle through a standard differential.
The EPA fuel consumption rating for the Seville was 14 MPG while the Deville is rated at 15 MPG both for the 368 in 1980. The difference is probably the axle ratio.
Fun and insightful article, GN. Project cars were a big part of the appeal of MT and CD in the 70s and 80s. The enthusiast magazines were showing the big three how to make cars the public would love to own, but Detroit didn’t seem to want to listen. I remember around 1973-74, Motor Trend prepared a project Pinto wagon, with appearance and handling upgrades, that would have cost Ford a pittance to offer. It would have gone a long way to improving the Pinto’s low ball reputation.
Do you remember the 200SEX? Datsun had a competition for the three big car magazines of the day. They were each given a new 200SX to modify with an eye towards suggesting improvements or options for future offerings. Car and Driver built two cars for the competition. The first was standard CandD sponsor fair: Enkeis, Recaros, Monroes or Bilsteins, ‘snug-top’ rear louvers, Cibies, Clarion, and tires by Phoenix, Semperit, or BFG. I think it was called the 200SXTRA. Their other car was the 200SEX. It had its springs removed, leaving it to ride on its bumpstops. Rolling stock was replaced with four compact spares. The steering wheel was a small-diamter, welded chain link design. The seats were leopard print, and it had full curb feelers. I think they wrote a parody article claiming it was their serious entry, and that the SXTRA was just to pander to the judges.
Yep – I remember that!
Interesting… Sounds like something, they would do on Top Gear.
Love the Datsun 200SX… I’ve owned 3, and currently own 1.
It stays garaged with my TE70 Corolla. 🙂
Top Gear very much carried on what C/D used to be.
Anyone remember the MT project car with the Pinto 2000cc around 1973? They put it up against a Porsche 914. IIRC the Pinto did well against the 914 1.7 but couldn’t keep up with the 2-liter which was probably the best performing 4-cylinder of the decade and really expensive.
The 1973 BMW 2002 tii made around 30 more horsepower than the Porsche 914 2.0, which really had a VW Type 4 engine. The Porsche was about 175 lbs lighter, but it wasn’t enough to let it keep up with the BMW in acceleration. Top speed was about the same due to the 914s smaller frontal area. Alfa Romeo’s Spica injected Veloce models were also faster than the 914 2.0 with the Type 4 engine. Earlier 914/6 2.0s were faster than any of these cars, but they were also 6 cylinder cars powered by 901 engines.
Ah, by “best performing 4-cylinder of the decade” I meant inclusive of handling; most magazine project cars were more about handing than engine power. Put it all together like on a track or mountain road and the 914 2.0 will take the tii or Alfa all day long. Heck the 73-74 2-liter was as good overall as the 914-6 which was better overall than a 911.
I don’t know what you mean by the 914 2.0 being as good as the 914/6, at least not in the US. The 914/6 had 110 hp and was unburdened by the pendulous weight of impact bumpers. The 914 2.0 had giant bumpers, 88 hp, and 33 mm rear brake brake caliper pistons compared to 38 mm pistons on the 914/6. In Europe, the 914 2.0 may not have had impact bumpers and didn’t have emissions controls, potentially making it closer to a 914/6. Porsche’s performance numbers for the European spec cars were 0-62 mph in 8.7 seconds for the 914/6 with a 129 mph top speed and 0-62 mph in 10.5 seconds for the 914 2.0 with a 118 mph top speed. The US 2.0 would have been even slower.
The 914/6 was certainly better than a 911, but that’s why it was limited to 110 hp when the 911T had between 125 and 140 hp.
I specifically called out the 73-74 914 2.0 as being as good as the 70-72 914-6. The ’73 had small rubber blocks on the front bumper, the rear was exactly the same as 70–72. In ’74 the rear bumper also got the small blocks.
The pendulous bumpers you refer to were used 75-76. At that time the engine power went down too. Anyone who knows the car will agree with me that on a track the 2-liter and 914-6 will be tied for first, the 70-71 911T 2nd and the rest far behind.
Between Dad and and his eldest son, we enjoyed an over 50 year subscription to “Car & Driver”; supplemented with “Automobile” magazine after it’s introduction. As mentioned above, several excellent, entertaining informative automotive writers were on it’s staff.
David E. Davis became my automotive Godfather. His opinions on various cars mirrored my own 98% of the time. His non automotive musings were always entertaining. I received several letters from him during the 1970’s and 1980’s.
With his all-too-sudden, too early death, “C&D” died for me also. I still have a subscription; but it will not be renewed upon expiration.
When the “bustle-back” cars were discussed previously this week or the Seville in general, I was always surprised when no one linked to this article.
I remember reading this article when it originally appeared and thinking that I’d like to try these parts on a near similar Nova
It’s beyond shameful that when Cadillac FINALLY decided to start competing with the sporting German brands they would start with the Cimarron….5-10 years after Car&Driver showed them how easily it could be done.
There is/was a 79 Buick Skylark on my local Craigslist that I considered buying so that I could duplicate this car, even if the Skylark only has a V6.
The second generation Seville did offer a turing suspension option. Actually the full size line also offered a suspension upgrade.
I love it. That would be a 70s Cadillac worth having. 🙂
FYI it makes me even sadder that GM killed all of its 350 cubic in plus gas passenger car V8s shortly after and that the fuel injection experiment with the Seville didn’t get carried over into the other V8s other than the muscle cars.
The first generation Seville weighed in at about 4500 lbs according to the article. A new V6 CTS is 600 (AWD) to 800 lbs lighter weight and has the handling with a much better body for safety considerations. Also you get the seats.
The ability to DeMalaise cars from the Malaise era like this was one redeeming quality of it, also one of the end user benefits of platform sharing. Definitely cool, the Seville was such a good looking car, every bit as much as a grey market W116, let alone a federalized one, this really would have been a sweet package had it been factory.
Oh and Recaro buckets and no console? Key to my heart!
The bustleback rendering is interesting. It seemed to retain the original taillight theme and integrate into the edge of the lump of the bustle(or whatever it’s called), which the Continental actually did. Also interesting is just how much it makes it resembles the aeroback Cutlass butt, ironic considering the 80 restyle of the Cutlass completely aped the original Seville design the same year the actual bustleback came out.
I think the Consumer Guide rendering is an artists guess at the 1980 Seville before it was released. Perhaps the bustle back had leaked or someone who had seen a proto type helped with the rendering.
this is a link
The link shows a Rolls Royce with what I would call a classic bustle back. Note that the Roof comes down to a point at the bumper, along with the rear fenders and the bustle back seems to protrude out from the body also coming to a point at the bumper. The lid is slopes downward and the upper deck is short relative to the lid.
I haven’t read that Seville article since it came out, thanks again GN! It’s funny how memory works. It was like reading it for the first time because I had forgotten some of the details. But I have always had a mental image of the perfect Seville or RWD Brougham and that’s one in dark brown metallic, on real wire wheels with black doughnut tires and front fogs.
Never knew where that came from because you didn’t see many Sevilles in brown and nearly all had whitewalls. There must have been a snapshot of that gorgeous CandD project car floating around in my head all these years!
Or maybe us car guys just all think alike and have mostly similar tastes. Your description of going to the drug store and having boxes of old car magazines could be me exactly. Did you look forward to seeing what the new bumpers would look like every year?
A crying shame GM didn’t do a sport version of the first Seville. If it had caught on maybe there would have been a RWD second gen. GM providing the leather for the seats and real wire wheels from the upcoming Elegante shows they were in on the project and testing the waters. They should have done it earlier but I’m sure no one was expecting the Seville to take off the way it did.
Very funny to read Templin’s comments about carburetors in 1979. More than a bit ironic that the last production car sold in America with carbs turned out to be the 1990 Cadillac Brougham.
A neighbor had a Gucci Seville in the late 70’s when I was about 8…I remember being completely in awe of it. And I liked the bustlebacks a lot too as a young kid when they came out. Another neighbor had a two tone silver and black bustleback Seville (like the Elegante color scheme in your post) and man, when it was new…..holy cow what a good looking car. I don’t remember the engine, but it probably had the diesel or the V8-6-4, either of which was not good news. I remember the Gucci Seville being around for many years and it eventually migrated to being parked on the street as a “extra” car. A good friend of my dad’s had a Peugeot 604 too, would you be interested in posting that article? That friend’s 604 was the only 604 I ever saw anywhere, though the 504’s and 505’s were pretty thick on the ground in my neighborhood at the time, relatively speaking….
From the “what if” file. I only Cadillac has seen fit to actually put a car like this into production, it would really have shook up the market. Always loved the first gen Seville and this tweaked model with the improved seats and suspension would really have been a nice car worth owning. I loved C/D magazine and read it religiously from about the ages 13-20 or so.
I miss the heyday of C&D project cars. I’ll always remember the 1979 Fairmont 2-door (2.3 4cyl. powered) that they managed to stuff every state-of-the-art (at least in a late malaise-era vibe) electronic gizmo and gadget into the poor box-on-wheels, along with the obligatory Recaro seats and requisite handling bits & pieces. I seem to remember this one met its demise after burning to the ground when one of the electronic add-ons shorted out. My favorite project was the 1980 AMC Eagle ‘Boss Wagon 4×4′> Want adjustable ride height? Let’s mount air shocks on all 4 corners-we don’t need any fillings left in our teeth after hitting the first bump! Ditch the fake wood on the dash? Sure-pry it off! Let’s also use an eraser to remove the fake chrome trim on the dash (I have this visions of eraser crumbs all over the place after it was done). Alloy wheels? Nah-lets take some off an Eldorado… They were a blast to read-too bad the pie chart and excessive-graphics current incarnation of C&D don’t do ’em any more (even though Don Sherman is still with ’em…)
Thanks for the memories-I remember reading the article in C/D when I used to subscribe to it-it reminds me sadly of how much fun C/D used to be and sadly what it has evolved into.
WHAT….you don’t like the way Car&Driver is trying to “channel” USA Today?
I find about half the issues of C&D are “crap” and I wouldn’t consider subscribing at any less than 75% off of the newstand price. That from a reader starting in 1967 or 68.
I used to think the British mag CAR was THE best car magazine….and still do, but now it’s because the others are worse than they once were.
Right on! Nowhere near as good as they were 50 years ago. Same with R&T.
Agreed. I finally let it go last year, after 37 years. Just not fun to read any more. When a magazine morphs from “Is the next issue out yet?” to “meh”, it’s time to let go.
The one thing I didn’t get about that build is why they didn’t also replace the information-free Caddy instrument cluster with something more sporting. That might have taken a bit more work as it would not be a simple bolt-in replacement.
Great Post! Thanks for sharing that article. I love to read these old magazines.
So, the squarish notch-back(1980-1988) A & G midsize body style
owes its cues to a mid-70s pioneer: The Seville.
I had read references to this article but had never seen it. Thanks for printing it. In the 78 De ville article the writer was impressed by how good the car was and how easy it would be to upgrade. There was another article about a first gen Seville with a twin turbo charged 454 Chevy V8 motor that was supposed to go 200mph. It had huge wheels and flared fenders and tube frame reinforcing. This was owned by the owner of a film production company. I think that it was tested at just under 170 mph. They were supposed to do a retest but never did. I have a copy of that article somewhere, I’ll see if I can find it.
I remember the license plate on that Seville: California license plate # 1FASTMF…
I came along a little later, so the C&D project I remember best is the twin-engined Honda CRX. I really enjoyed my subscription, I’d never have known to get a Countach poster without it. Aside from the road tests and reviews, I liked some commentary (denunciation of 55 mph speed limit) better than other (dislike for environmental regulation, instead of troubled industry response to it).
As to this car, if the K-body really weighed 4500 pounds, Wikipedia says it outweighed Mercedes W116 by 475-600 pounds, for the “SE” and “SEL” V8 versions. (The 6.9 was closer to 4250, but that wouldn’t have mattered.) Once your boss traded up to the new Mercedes, you’d have to be a good driver (or the boss would have to be pretty bad) to keep up, even with these mods.
For the most part, I like this build–other than the seats, it’s not a lot of money, and it’s a good combination of simple reasoning and parts-bin knowledge. I’d want it ahead of any other Seville of that generation. But I’d probably rather have any Cadillac built before 1968 or after 2002…
According to http://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/cadillac/seville_1gen/seville_1gen_sedan/1979.html the Diesel was the only version weighing near 4500lbs, the gas versions were just under 4200.
Matt – I think you will find this article from Ate Up With Motor interesting
http://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-technology-definitions/curb-weight-shipping-weight/
To summarize, you can’t put much stock in the published weights of vehicles.
automobile-catalog.com is very thorough, they have both “Shipping Weight” and “Curb Weight” listed – although these are both probably from GM documents and reflect a Seville with zero options added. I know there weren’t many options available, but since a-c shows 4,343lbs. for a 1976 Seville (it apparently lost some weight over the next 3 years?) C&D’s data seems right on the money.
Curb weight for the U.S.-Spec 1976 450SEL: 3,990lbs. Only about 350lbs. less than the Seville, which is still quite a bit.
Since I can’t edit my post above for some reason, I’ll just add a second post on my tangent
Here are various published weights from different sources for my car, a 1971 Alfa Spider:
Alfa Romeo sales literature lists the curb weight as 2,292 lbs.
Both Motor Trend (September 1971) and Road Test (May 1971) magazines echo the Alfa literature at 2,292 lbs.
Sports Car Graphic (May 1971) lists 2,260 lbs. curb weight, 2,485 lbs. test weight.
Road & Track (March 1971) lists 2,315 lbs. curb weight, 2,700 lbs. test weight.
I won’t dispute that published weights shouldn’t be counted as gospel, but for the sake of argument, since the Seville’s weight was numerically mentioned as well as the W116, I don’t necessarily think posting specs to support or counter a claim is invalid, since the claim itself is unsubstantiated. According to AC the 450SE is 3814lbs, so it still supports the claim that there’s a 300lb or so lb difference between the two.
It would actually make a lot of sense to repeat the exercise today using a non rusty Seville and modern aftermarket bits…
Outstanding piece, GN. Like you, I had kept my car mags for years, until finally being forced to send them to recycling for a big move.
Sweet, I’d love to own a Seville like this now… although I’d go for different wheels. Did factory alloys or styled steel wheels exist for these cars? I don’t think I’ve ever seen them with anything except fake wires (and now real ones).
I’d like to own that ’49 Kurtis on the cover of the inaugural Motor Trend even more!!
I would like to echo the notion of using different wheels…even wider steel wheels with the base model wheelcovers, with either pencil whitewalls, or blackwall tires would have been cool. For that matter, the Goodyear Double Eagle tires that Penske put on a modified “sporty” Eldorado in the early 80s with a simple white eagle detail on the sidewall.
I don’t even mind the brown and tan color scheme, as long as it was a vinyl-top delete car…
Cheaper wheels, cheaper seats, but all the good greasy bits.
From scan of Aug/77 C/D:
“After our treatment it became a hard-biting, tail-out cornering fool. If it had two less doors, this super Seville could be labeled a Cadillac Trans-Am.”
Anybody else find it amusing that a Malaise Era F-Body could be held up as the pinnacle of cornering capability to which other cars should aspired?
That said, I really like this Super Seville: it had to be a big improvement on stock for road feel and related sensations more associated with European motoring. The sporty luxury sedan is a hard combo to get right, but this upgraded version might just have pulled it off. (By the lax standards of 1977, that is.) I’d love to take this beast out for a quick slalom to decide for myself.
No mention, however, of whether C/D’s suspension upgrades including removing the slices of shoe leather that The General stuffed between the leafs of the rear springs to give “the new, smaller Cadillac” its legendary(somewhat) softer-than-a-Nova ride.
Looks like Elvis had a similar idea: check the fat rubber on The King’s ’77 (the last car he ever bought). No vinyl roof, either.
I have to wonder if the better option in 1977, or at least the more cost-effective one, would’ve been to start with a DeVille with the towing package.
Hmm. You made me think….
You’d have a bigger vehicle, but the first year of NoBloat so probably not ridiculously bigger, and with the improved suspension C/D liked as a starting point. You wouldn’t be able to graft Trans Am parts onto it though – wonder if Chevy F41 bits would work with the big Caddy suspension?
I started getting C/D two months after this, so missed reading it at the time.
It’s amazing/horrifying to realize how heavy that first Seville was. I’m so used to reading about it being a stretched Nova that I expected something closer to Nova weight. We must have made bigger strides in body engineering terms since then than I thought.
That bumper modification though – being able to lose eighteen pounds (8.1kg) from each end. With the need to conserve fuel, I can only imagine the lobbying that must have gone on behind the scenes: engineers wanting those 5mph bumper laws repealed to improve weight distribution, save weight and thus save fuel, and the insurance mob bleating on about the safety angle. History has shown that in the long term the engineers won. I have to say, if I owned an American car of this era, I’d certainly be happy to remove that much weight without compromising the appearance.
So a gentle soak in the GM parts bin could have resulted in a sporty handling car, great idea and exactly what Toyota allowed Chris Amon to do to their soggy Corona and that worked and sold well, an opportunity missed.
Amazing how many companies just didn’t get it back then.
“I eagerly awaited the arrival of the mail when I knew the next month’s issues were being released. I devoured each issue from cover to cover.”
Nailed it for me, circa 1972-2006. After that it just stopped making sense.
It would help to see that Consumer Guide sketch from a few different angles. The bustle back is sloped more to resemble a traditional trunk and it works better IMO. Taillights are similar to ’76 Seville and also improve the
look.
I was reading this article again and I have to say y’all are starry-eyed optimists. The idea of putting some F-body pieces in to the Seville to make it handle better SOUNDS great, but reading about the C/D project car made me wince over and over again.
Trans Am spool valve and front anti-roll bar bolt on — fine! But the wheels absolutely don’t match the car visually or geometrically (they’re obviously too wide in front and the text admits they had clearance problems), heat-treating the front springs to lower them seems … iffy, hacking up the bumpers to save a few pounds seems like an awful idea (I would not want to have to explain that one to an insurance company or a judge), the firm shocks made for what they admit was a punishing ride over the most common sort of California freeway surface, and the incremental improvements in handling still added up to mediocre results.
In the ’80s, Cadillac came up with some surprisingly competent sport suspension packages for the Eldorado and Seville. This is … not that, and don’t get me started on the awful wire wheels, ridiculous steering wheel, or illegal Cibié lights.
This wasn’t so much removing the Malaise as drenching it in Tabasco Sauce.
Motor Trend had an absolutely amazing article about the largest cars on the road in 1975 or 1976 named King of the Road that was just fantastic. I wish I could find it. I believe that the Buick Electra came out on top as the winner and best balanced of them all.