For quite some time the popular consensus has been Cadillac spent the 1980s squandering their brand equity in the grandest of fashions. With such product offerings as the not yet ready for primetime V8-6-4, the finicky HT4100, and the badge-engineered Cimarron, their formerly sterling reputation certainly acquired a goodly degree of self-induced tarnish.
With the highly visible use of long dead styling details, this Fleetwood certainly did nothing to eradicate this quick growing cancer of brand diminishment. Or did it? One could just as easily make the argument Cadillac hit a major league home run with this series of Fleetwood by tapping into traditional Cadillac strengths such as continuity of styling and unabashed comfort.
It is accurate to state I am rather torn about this Fleetwood. To determine whether this Fleetwood should be classified as a General Motors Deadly Sin or Greatest Hit, let’s gather these various thoughts and discuss them in a somewhat organized fashion. This Cadillac is as good a representation as any for the concept of cars being a microcosm of the world at large. As with life itself, this Cadillac has so many various elements to challenge any predetermined mindset.
It’s a Greatest Hit; How Could It Be Anything Else?
Like people, car models can have a bad day or two. Sure, the 1980s saw such things as the downsized 1985 DeVille and the HT4100. Realizing the error of their ways, in the four model years following the downsized DeVille, Cadillac had been diligently working to overcome their styling and mechanical hiccups, knowing it owed their customer base something better.
One of the seven habits of highly effective people is the ability to learn from mistakes. Given the changes seen at Cadillac showrooms it was obvious Cadillac had learned a hard lesson. People were also responding to Cadillac owning their mistakes as sales were rebounding.
When this Fleetwood was introduced for model year 1989, demand quickly outweighed supply. How often did that happen at GM during the 1980s? That alone should be an overwhelming indicator of how Cadillac had tapped into a solid stream of market desire. Such strong desire for any particular model is a rare occurrence and it should be the envy of any automaker.
One of the more obviously contentious pieces about this Fleetwood is going to be the exterior styling. Okay, that’s fine, fender skirts and quasi-tail fins weren’t the hottest styling trends of the time. Upon that we could all likely agree.
But think about it. Cadillac had enough balls to offer something that was highly and memorably divergent from the sterile and homogeneous exteriors being offered by rival luxury manufacturers, primarily those certain two from Germany. Those at Cadillac knew they were selling cars to the public, not the fickle and prissy automotive reporters at Car & Driver, Motor Trend, and their ilk. Cadillac was richly embracing their heritage and keeping things traditional.
It seems some, such as said automotive reporters, often derisively scoff at keeping anything traditional in the automotive world, as if doing so is indicative of something undesirable and contagious. This scoffing also seems to contain condescending insinuations how anybody wishing to maintain some degree of tradition is a Luddite, backwards, fearful of change, whatever.
However, as we’ve established, Cadillac had the last laugh. Customers responded to the daringly unique styling of the Fleetwood. What’s even better, Cadillac maintained some of the styling elements of the Fleetwood on the next generation DeVille that debuted in 1993.
Remember these? While we have yet to cover one at CC, the fender skirted look remained. While it was more in the idiom of the 1960s Cadillac by being incorporated into the fender in lieu of the visible seam, they remained nonetheless. Thank you, Fleetwood. Your predictiveness is inspiring.
That alone is proof the market had responded in an affirmative manner. Had it not done so this styling element would have been unceremoniously jettisoned.
No doubt Cadillac was enduring a few less than stellar years during the 1980s, but who hasn’t? Hasn’t Honda had that automatic transmission thing? Didn’t Toyota have that rusting frame fiasco in their pickups? All makes, regardless of price, have their issues. Think about it; they all have service departments full of mechanics. Piling onto somebody having a tough time, such as Cadillac during the 1980s, is such an easy and fun thing to do.
This Fleetwood was a GM Greatest Hit.
It’s Nothing But a Deadly Sin
So what if labeling any car as a GM Deadly Sin is walking a virtual mine field, in which any article containing those two magic words will raise the ire of many? This Fleetwood is a Deadly Sin if ever there was. It was like a ball-and-chain affixed to the ankle of General Motors, providing nothing but a dead weight to curtail whatever forward momentum Cadillac may have been generating by 1989.
Let’s not forget the established definition of a Deadly Sin: It is any car that didn’t specifically counter GM’s downward spiral. This Fleetwood is a poster child for that definition.
This poor Fleetwood has so many styling traits screaming for mercy, where does one start? This entire series of Fleetwood is ripe for derision, the most obvious of which is those insipid fender skirts. Cadillac had jettisoned that styling trait in, what, 1976? That was thirteen years before this Fleetwood was born. In a sense this Fleetwood is what it would have been like had music group Wild Cherry waited to release Play That Funky Music until 1989. It wouldn’t quite have fit, would it? Not quite fitting is the embodiment of this Fleetwood.
If Cadillac was out to alter their self-induced trajectory, this retrograde mobile wasn’t the mechanism for doing so. A person would have better luck driving bridge piling with a claw hammer. What exactly did the Fleetwood contribute in providing General Motors, or even Cadillac, with wider market penetration or in improvement of their financial position? Selling 30,000 cars in 1989, with volumes dropping precipitously each of the next three years, is not a contribution to either of those metrics in any way, shape, or form.
Cadillac wasn’t wrong to call it “America’s most distinctive full-size luxury car.” That isn’t a compliment.
Taking the entire 1989 Cadillac line into consideration, this Fleetwood is simply an awkward player in a line that otherwise makes some degree of sense. Even the antiquated rear-drive Cadillac Brougham, a throwback to 1977, presented itself in a less contrived fashion than does this Fleetwood. With the various and painfully applied visual doodads, this Fleetwood looks like the girl playing dress-up with her mother’s clothing and makeup. It isn’t convincing.
What is also not convincing is how the various nuggets of foofaraw on the Fleetwood could add nearly $5,300 over the $24,960 base price of the Sedan DeVille upon which it was based. Let’s also not forget the Fleetwood Sixty Special whose base price was nearly $4,000 above the Fleetwood’s $30,300 base price.
Let’s think of this another way….the Bureau of Labor Statistics says that $30,300 base price of the Fleetwood equates to $64,200 in August 2019. That’s on parity with a 2019 CT6; that’s a lot of money for an otherwise dolled up car of lesser value.
Is that any type of enviable business model?
Well, at GM it is. We ought not forget about the Escalade. It’s simply a different execution of the same thought process.
The Fleetwood is yet another member of GM’s Deadly Sin parade.
The Conclusion?
Tackiness will always have an audience. Cadillac simply decided to tap into this market with the Fleetwood. Was it successful? That is debatable; while there was no direct follow-up with the next generation of DeVille, some of the (worst) visual elements remained.
At the beginning I said I was torn about this Fleetwood. I’m still torn but I will say this….
This Fleetwood is like a train wreck. It’s a disgusting mess but I can’t help but view it with a cocktail of incredulity and admiration. Perhaps it helps if one isn’t so cursed as being able to see both sides of most situations.
Found August 2019 in Jefferson City, Missouri
Note: a rerun of an older post.
I like fender skirt cars, and I like that, and the follow-up Deville.
I’d lean toward train wreck, except—
I was a TV news reporter who traveled very nearly weekly in those years. A lot of rental cars. And this Fleetwood was terrific. I was 33 years old and I was like—“Uh….I’m not supposed to like this car this much.”
Another candidate for “lose the skirts”.
Interesting you say that. This article is from 2019 when this Cadillac was for sale and I’ve been seeing it periodically ever since, more than any other car I’ve found in the wild. It has undergone a transformation, with the skirts having disappeared and the owner having done body work to eradicate any indication of their existence. It’s been a slow, but steady and obvious, transformation.
You can put lipstick on a PIG, but it’s still a PIG. In My NOT so humble Opinion, giving the FLEETWOOD name to a downsized butt ugly was ONE of several mistakes Cadillac made to drop it from it’s lofty *Standard of the World * status. The only decent aspect of this POS is the plush tufted velvet interior similar to my (then) 89 RWD Brougham DeElegance.
I think it looks a lot better than the modern monstrosities.
It may be just me, but now as then, I would prefer this Cadillac over the “sterile and homogeneous exteriors being offered by rival luxury manufacturers, primarily those certain two from Germany.”
But then, I like the styling of the 1983-1989 Chrysler Fifth Avenue, too.
It looks a hell of a lot better than those two modern monstrosities in the photos.
It depends what Cadillac was trying to achieve.
Yes, it was a logical extension from what had gone before – but was this what the market wanted? Doubtless it had its strong points, but 30,000 annual sales and falling doesn’t sound like the market was convined. And I can’t imagine a potential Mercedes customer looking at this visual throwback seriously.
Ideally GM needed quality product with quality engines to seriously appeal to both the old-style Cadillac customers and the Euro-intenders. This seems to fall between two stools; a halfway-house kind of car that doesn’t really meet either group’s brief.
Maybe GM needed to keep Cadillac as it was and bring back the La Salle name to go after Mercedes?
If their styling had been a bit less awkward, these cars would have been the perfect mainstream Cadillac for 1983 (which is when I think the downsized FWD C-body was originally supposed to debut): coming out of the early ’80s recession, when Cadillac’s reputation was still strong, but their traditional customers were in the mood for something more rational in size and less fuelish. By 1989, they seemed like willful throwbacks, aimed solely at people who’d loved ’70s Cadillacs and still wore polyester slacks. The “30something” Baby Boomer audience didn’t want anything to do with cars like this, although the cars themselves weren’t without virtue if you didn’t mind the clumsily integrated greenhouse.
Does my disinterest mean it is a deadly sin? I don’t care for the car especially the aft 3/4 view. I much prefer, and I do mean much, the 1990-92 Fleetwood Brougham.
I still don’t understand why the Mercedes and BMW were considered sterile. They made beautiful cars at the time, and in 1989 for example, the BMW E34 was released to the US market, one of the most beautiful sedans ever designed, in my opinion. You can have your Fleetwood, I’ll take my E34, LS400, W126 or Q45, all of which I had or have now.
When is a fender skirt not a fender skirt? That’s where the strangeness rears its ugly head: those so-called fender skirts really aren’t fender skirts, at all. They just look like it. Someone at Cadillac thought it would be a good idea to put this affectation on the car, and it’s not a very pleasing aesthetic. I’m going to guess there was an aftermarket Continental kit, as well as the typical, dealer-added, padded vinyl roof. I’m sure there are more than a few of these so adorned in Florida.
Of course, these sold well, so I guess it helped GM’s bottom line (at least for a while).
The fender skirts and padded vinyl top were among the features that distinguished the Fleetwood from the cheaper but dimensionally identical De Ville. You could skip both by ordering a plain De Ville, although you could also omit the vinyl top from the Fleetwood as a credit option, which I assume the buyer of the blue ’89 must have done.
Agreed. An image of the Sedan DeVille within the article would have made it more clear as to which was more pleasing to the eye.
It’s not Pretty. Well, Cadillac Pretty from days of yore.
The “Maroon” DeVille looks 1000x better.
The Blue Fleetwood looks almost like someone trying to draw the Maroon Deville, by description only, without even seeing the “real” one. The Blue color doesn’t help. (I just looked up some others, and it looks better in darker colors).
I’m sure it’s a fine Motorcar, but when one buys a Cadillac, you want the looks, not just the ‘features’.
And of course, I would drive one, with no issues (other than the typical 80s Cadillac Issues), if the price were right.
Interesting to read some of the above comments. They certainly vary from hated to loved and not much in between.
I fall into the love it category. Of course, I’m partial to these as a parent is to their own children. I started selling Cadillac in 1988 and these fell directly into our greatest hits. In fact, I was one of only two sales people from our dealership flown to Detroit for the big introduction of the 1989 Deville/Fleetwood (front drive) cars. It was a black tie event and we got to each drive a brand new Deville off the factory lot and all the way back to the dealership. For us, that was about 500 miles and as a very young man I had a blast. These cars did exactly what they needed to do for Cadillac and they were a great success. Mostly the Deville that sold much better, but the front drive Fleetwood had it’s mark on those who wanted a luxury car just like that.
As others have pointed out in their comments. I don’t feel Cadillac was any worse back in those days by dressing up a lesser car into a higher priced Cadillac than they are today with the glorified Tahoe……………….ah Escalade. At least the 1989 Fleetwood had a luxury presence unlike the box Escalade of today.
Look at the abysmal trim alignment (or mis-alignment) on that skirt, off by 1/2″. If they’re going to load on the floss at least it should have fit properly. And a friend’s new ’89 Brougham was no better. though it had a proper rwd chassis and stolid if weak-chested Olds 307 engine, it felt plastic-y and cheap. No wonder Lincoln was giving Cadillac fits in this era.
Mom’s ride in the early 90s was a 1991 Sedan De Ville. This without the wheel skirts, and the engine had expanded first to 4.7 then 4.9 in ’91.
For what it was, and who it appealed to, it did the job. Really, what they should’ve done at first with the FWD downsizing.
White with a blue leather interior. Credit where due, this was the back seat we wished they had in the 1978 Olds of our youth – I’m a hair over 6-foot and could cross my legs back there.Not in the Olds – even a Delta 88 was big on the outside, less so inside. As for sitting up front, prod it hard and it accelerated a LOT faster than I was ready for.
Years ago I had the option of buying a blue 93 DeVille or a blue 94 DeVille. Since the square, bland, boxy look of the 80’s were long gone, I bought the 94.
You need to look at sales numbers of the Deville to determine if this car was a sucess. The Fleetwood since the early 60s was just a Deville with more frosting and profit margin, they were never a big seller. Anyways, Cadillac moved 110,000 devilles in 1989, they would kill for that type of volume today.
Personally the extra frosting Fleetwood kind of depends on the year if it looks better than the standard Deville. In this case Id say HELL NO, the vinyl roof treatment is so silly with the wrap around aircraft style doors on these. Luckily this one doesnt have it but does have the silly bolt on fender skirts. I like fender skirts but this car looks like it was just tacked on, it wasnt part of the original design.
I share your ultimate take.
These days, the Fleetwood is an interesting and collectible relic, insofar as the fact that not much else from 1989 was like it…but it had a finite ownership base when new and it absolutely signified that Cadillac was not “with the times.” It was an opportunity cost. And while it was one of the better executions of GM’s 80s downsizing and transverse-FWD-ificiation efforts, but that’s not saying much. All of the cars were awkward and ill-proportioned, with lots of unflattering front overhang, abrupt transitions from sides to front/rear, and that goofy formal roofline to which GM was formally married. I see the appeal of a ’79 Fleetwood. It wears its style proudly and artfully and it looks like it belongs in that era. I do not see the appeal of, ten years later, trying to festoon those same 70s pastiches over a much smaller shape.
For what it’s worth, I do not think the 90s B-body Fleetwood looked any better, nor did any of its platform mates, largely because of those barreled side profiles.
“Okay, that’s fine, fender skirts and quasi-tail fins weren’t the hottest styling trends of the time.”
Not only that. Both of them—and the car as a whole—simply scream “Old fart!”
Today, just as it did back then.
Having owned a 91 DeVille, I really loved this generation Cadillac C car. As others have pointed out, it’s what the 85 cars should have been. – 4.9 and all. I don’t think it was a “Deadly Sin” like the contemporary Allante or Eldorado – but Cadillac was trying to have it both ways, with “NEW TECHNOLOGY” to appeal to Boomers….and classic styling touches like chrome trim, wheel skirts, and tufted seats that the usual customers loved.
I would love to have a 91-93 again, but I’m also a Millennial that loves Perry Mason.
Love this model Cadillac. Back in the late 80’s I was in sales and after a couple of years of renting Tauruses and their ilk (considered full size) I fortunately discovered the National Car Rental Emerald Club (free). This membership enabled customers to choose any vehicle parked in the Emerald Aisle section. That’s when I first drove an ‘89 DeVille. Born in the 50’s I was always fascinated by Cadillacs and now was renting them regularly. Kind of a dream come true for a car kid/guy. Due to a wrong turn, 5 of us coworkers ended up on a dark foggy narrow unpaved road on a mountain to get to the Pacific Coast Highway. Treacherous conditions, no guard rails beside steep slopes, that Caddy carried us safely with perfect tight handling through this terrain. Bought a 2 yr old ‘87 DeVille shortly afterwards and then upgraded to a new updated ‘91. White SDV, aluminum cladding and wheels, added a dark blue cabriolet top. I was 37 and living the dream behind that wheel. Used to take my 3 kids (18 months, 3 & 4 years old) to classic car shows. We’d watch the burnouts as the muscle cars pulled out and then eventually we did the same in front of the remaining spectators (yup, 2 car seats and a booster all across the back seat). The oldest still talks about those days. Good times in this ride!
I was 15 when these came out. Being in New Zealand meant I only saw them in magazines, and my gosh they were seriously not good looking cars. We had an extremely open market at the time, accepting pretty much any make and model as long as the steering wheel was on the right (hand!) side. When I saw my first magazine Fleetwood, I just couldn’t believe how dreadfully disproportionate and horribly styled it was compared with what was coming out of Japanese and European factories. I mean, the Lexus LS400 launched in January 1989, and although a tad bland, it had proper proportions, a proper interior. I quite like fender skirts, but the Fleetwood’s cutline is awful and looked like half a dustbin lid had got wedged in the wheel arch. This model Fleetwood is definitely a deadly sin – standard of the world? Not with that styling, and not in 1989…