(first posted 1/21/2020) If yesterday’s Curbside Capsule of a 1988 Cadillac Cimarron whet your appetite for Cadillac’s 1980’s flagship of mediocrity, this should be just the main course to satisfy you. It is natural to wonder what Cadillac was thinking when it introduced the car. This article may somewhat answer that and it will definitely tell us what auto journalists were thinking about it. Surprisingly, much of it was rather upbeat.
Above is the very first car magazine I ever acquired. I was 10 and visiting my grandparents. My grandfather had this Motor Trend, not because he subscribed or anything, he just said he liked to read them every once in a while to see what was new in the car world. He was no car enthusiast, but he did have good taste and an instinct for buying GM’s Greatest Hits (see the CC article I wrote about his cars). Accordingly, he did not buy a Cimarron, but he did pass the magazine on to me. I’m sure the Bandit Trans Am article was what most interested me. I kept the magazine, and started subscribing three years later. I have continuously subscribed ever since and kept all those issues as well, so I went into the archives and pulled out the Cimarron articles I could find.
The first will be Motor Trend’s in-depth look at the car on its introduction in mid-1981 (as a 1982 model) with a road test of a pre-production car. The second article is Car and Driver’s first road test of a production car. Finally, we’ll look at how the Cimarron progressed after it’s main mid-cycle revisions with a Motor Trend comparison test between the 1985 Cimarron, BMW 318i and Audi 4000 Quattro.
Motor Trend, June 1981. However much of the article you read, you should definitely read the first paragraph above. The first sentence in the 1981 Motor Trend article is meant to be positive, but in hindsight could be read negatively. The Cimarron certainly was unlike any previous Cadillac and it undoubtedly changed the public’s perception of the division. Just not necessarily for the better.
The third sentence really sets the tone and my first thought was that the author was being facetious or quoting a Cadillac manager. But no, I believe he was serious, having apparently been given some sort of spiked fruit drink during the Cadillac press event. He goes on to describe the rushed development, which is, of course, at odds with the claims of quality and refinement. The main rub with the whole car is clearly identified, though: “Since Cadillac division had little to say in the final design of the 4-door sedan used for the Cimarron, they could only improvise on the J-car’s fertile bed”. While Cadillac clearly did what they could to improve the Cavalier, without being able to change the platform, body panels, engine or transmissions, they were severely limited in how much they could differentiate the vehicle from its economy car brethren.
The author also puts his finger on the panic at Cadillac that led to the car. In the wake of the second gas crisis, in the bottom of the worst economy in many years, sales were bad and the underwhelming Diesel and V6 engines were not helping. Dealers wanted something to sell to compete with foreign sport sedans and they wanted it yesterday. Cadillac could have used the X-body to do its treatment to, but decided on the J-body because it was newer. That was probably wise, since the public’s perception of the X’s was already pretty well set by 1981-82. Now, if Cadillac had been willing to do as much modification of the basic car as they had done with the original 1976 Seville, things might be different. However, they committed to an under-two-year timetable which didn’t allow for changing any of the J-car fundamentals. At least they would be introducing a car based on something nobody had seen before, with a clean perception slate.
Those seats do look comfy, no? Motor Trend in the map pocket is a nice touch.
Not only was the car new, but the whole concept of an American car trying to compete directly with foreign luxury/sport sedans was previously untried. Detroit had done sporty for years, and even pseudo Euro sporty had been done with cars like the Pontiac Sprints in the 60’s, Grand Am in the 70’s as well as the aforementioned Seville. The Cimarron was a bit different in that is was similar size to foreign cars and sold in only one configuration, with everything essential to its competitive mission standard. Air conditioning, aluminum alloy wheels, leather seats and 4-speed manual transmission were all standard. Only one suspension configuration was offered and it was the area Cadillac put the most development into. Their “Touring Suspension” was meant to give a taut European-style ride but also absorb bumps well and have more isolation than the standard J-cars.
The primary target car during development was the Audi 4000. This was realistic, as the 4000 rode on a front drive platform shared with a more economy-minded Volkswagen. At 2,594 lbs., the Cimarron was actually 400lbs. heavier than the 4000, which was quite the featherweight. Can you imagine a compact car with luxury pretensions weighing 2,200 lbs. today?! Audi’s entry level sedan today is the A3, which weighs 3,197 lbs. Take a good look at the comparison picture above, we’ll come back to that near the end of the story.
This page (40) is interesting, wherein the author evaluates the drive train. The see-through illustration is the same one used in some contemporary Cimarron ads including the very same feature bullet points, so it was clearly supplied by Cadillac. In the third paragraph down, the author states, “On the surface the Cimarron appears to have every sport sedan prerequisite” and he goes on to make a pretty good case for that.
The mental exercise I played was to imagine it’s 1981 and I block out all I know about how the Cimarron exercise and GM’s 1980’s history played out. The J platform is GM’s newest car and I’m not very familiar with the Cavalier. The muscle car era ended about 10 years ago and power outputs have been dropping like yesterday’s birthday balloons for many years. Most cars don’t have much over 100hp and sub-100 power numbers in popular cars are not unusual.
With that in mind, I read “The performance of the 1.8 engine is exceptional”. Read today, that’s a jaw-droppingly optimistic statement, but remember, it’s 1981. 86hp isn’t much, but compared to the Audi’s 78hp it doesn’t sound so bad. 0-60 in 13.73 sec matched the Audi, though the top speed of 90 mph was 10 less (3.65:1 final drive. That 400 extra pounds hurts it here). Plenty of contemporary cars couldn’t match that time, though today I think every car in the U.S. market could beat such tortoise-like acceleration.
If you are old enough to remember the 80’s, you probably remember the term Yuppie. Maybe you were one yourself. The word loosely stood for Young, Upwardly-mobile Professionals, and they were known to be partial to upscale foreign cars. The term is not used in the article, but Cadillac really wanted to capture a slice of the Yuppie market.
The last page (121) covers ride and handling. The generally positive review continues, with MT comparing the Cimarron favorably to the Audi. They seem to like the handling better overall, especially on the highway and in snowy conditions. The article claims that the Cadillac will have a similar price to the Audi, but ended up being substantially higher. The Cimarron had a base price of $12,131 ($32,333 in 2019 Dollars), vs the Audi’s base of $10,865 (which being 1982’s inflation conditions, was over $1,000 more than in 1981). In fact, the conclusion asserts that the Cimarron beats the Audi at its own game.
Those Yuppies were in their sights. Let’s see how Car and Driver thought their aim was.
Car and Driver, August 1981. In the mid-80’s, I also subscribed to Car and Driver. I still do, but there were large gaps in between. I have acquired a few earlier ones, though, and I happen to have a 1981 issue where they subjected a production Cimarron to a full road test. Then as now, C&D tended to have more lively and readable writing as well as being a bit less prone to manufacturer butt-kissing. Even so, the review is generally positive. The author (Rich Ceppos, who is still there in 2020) identifies much the same facts and factors involved with the car’s development that the MT author does, but puts them more succinctly. He seems rather excited to have a Cadillac that is such a departure from the norm. “The 1982 Cimarron represents nothing less than an about-face in Cadillac marketing–one of the boldest moves ever made by a car company.” This is certainly true and (unlike the MT article) doesn’t make one wonder what he drank at the Cadillac presser.
Car and Driver was predisposed to like the Cimarron because they were an outfit that had no use for Cadillac’s traditional models and this new Caddy was an astonishing departure. The cars the Cimarron was ostensibly competing with were totally in C&D’s wheelhouse and this was the first Detroit product to legitimately enter that market segment.
From that I’m-living-in-1981 perspective, the review makes the whole idea of the Cimarron not nearly so implausible as it seems today in hindsight. On paper, it lines up pretty well with the market segment. It’s more expensive than the Audi or Honda Accord (by about $2000), but has about the same performance. It is slower than the BMW 320i and Volvo, but also substantially less expensive. The base price ($12,131) was pretty high, but it came well-equipped in base form and even with most of the available options other than the sunroof it came in under $13k.
The break-out section “The Making of an UnCadillac” is worth reading for insight into the Cimarron’s development.
The low-profile tires on the concept drawing could be straight out of 2020! The article makes it clear Cadillac did not want to make a miniature Sedan DeVille, but rather a unique Cadillac that would play to the sensibilities of younger, foreign car buyers, a.k.a Yuppies. Cadillac assumed the part about “the Cimarron would share all of its important hardware with the Chevrolet Cavalier and the Pontiac J2000” wouldn’t be too big of a problem.
I always liked the Counterpoint section in C&D road tests, where other writers summarize their opinions in a few short, pithy paragraphs. They were generally not afraid to slam an unworthy car. With the Cimarron, even the Counterpoints are pretty positive. The closest to nailing the long term reality of the car was Don Sherman, though even he got it somewhat wrong in predicting that existing clientele would “buy this one in droves”. That idea probably originated from the case of the original Seville, which sold quite well but mainly to traditional Caddy customers rather than the Mercedes customers the car was allegedly aimed at. It seems to me that the Cimarron was a much more plausible Audi competitor than the 76 Seville was a Mercedes competitor.
For much of GM’s history, its dominance and sales success was mostly a given. In 1976, GM was still the king, but by 1981, it was well into the process of being dethroned. Most people just didn’t realize it yet.
In both the 1981 Motor Trend and Car and Driver road tests, the Cimarron is given grace as a well-intentioned newcomer. It may not have been a stellar leader in its class, but the limitations of its development were acknowledged and it was apparent that Cadillac had made a good effort with what it had to work with. It had potential and if Cadillac could continue to aggressively improve it, it was credited as a legitimate future competitor to the best imported luxury sport sedans. So, how did that play out? If we fast forward four years, how competitive was the Cimarron with Audi and BMW in 1985?
Motor Trend, July 1985. This Motor Trend test is definitely not an apples to apples comparison. For starters, the $16,000 as-tested Caddy (equipped with every option in the book by my calculation) is going up against a $18,600 BMW and a $19,400 Audi, a.k.a. prime Yuppie-mobiles. The 3 Series had moved to a new generation since the Cimarron was introduced. The 4000 hadn’t but had received a heavy facelift, a new 5-cylinder engine and Quattro model. The 4000 Quattro had a unique all-wheel-drive system and the 3 Series rode on a rear-wheel-drive platform not derived from an economy car. While both Germans had bespoke engines and 5 speed manuals, the Caddy came with a Chevrolet engine and a 4-speed manual (5-speed manual would be standard in 1987). The fact that Cadillac supplied Motor Trend with an automatic tester may be a clue to how focused they were at that point on their foreign competition.
The start of the article’s Cimarron section makes it clear that the goodwill the Cimarron had in 1981 has evaporated and by 1985, among auto journalists at least, it was not taken seriously as a player in the sport compact field. Apparently the Long Term Test on the 82 Cimarron did not particularly endear it to the editors, nor had any of the improvements made prior to 1985.
As before, on paper it wasn’t obviously deficient. However, look at the photos in this article and then go back and look at the group photo with the BMW and Audi in the 1981 Motor Trend article. Putting my mind into “I live in 1981” mode, I’m reading that 81 MT issue in May and I’ve never seen the Cimarron or the Cavalier before. Next to a new BMW and Audi, it looks comparable, more modern and even quite attractive. I then move to this 1985 article and adjust my mind to “I live in 1985 (Michael Jackson and Madonna are awesome!)” mode. The Cimarron looks a lot like the Cavalier I rented last year. Even with the new front end and wheels, it’s starting to look rather dated. The Audi and BMW have progressed in appearance quite a bit, but the Cimarron looks pretty much like it did in 1982 and is transparently similar to models sold by every other GM division.
Still, the Cimarron had recently received a major power upgrade and finally gotten a set of real performance tires, among other enhancements. Would it be enough to change the auto journalists preconceptions?
Actually, as far as the article is concerned, it sort of did change their conception of the car. “It became immediately obvious that there was probably a lot more to this car than what hurt the eyes.” The line is funny, but he makes the point clear that the Cimarron has functionally improved leaps and bounds from the car they remembered from 1982.
The author says “It’s embarrassing to be so cock-sure of what a car can and cannot do, only to find out that your preconceptions weren’t even close to reality.” He also allows that Cadillac has “radically transform[ed] a ho-hum car” into a legitimate performance sedan. However, he concludes by saying that the interior and exterior appearance will keep it from achieving many conquest sales in the market.
The Cimarron had the most horsepower and torque, best acceleration time (0-60 10.08 sec.) and skidpad number (0.83g), with the worst braking distance (60-0 162 ft.) and gas mileage (19 mpg combined) despite being the lightest car in the test. Overall, reasonably competitive and did I mention it was the least expensive car by a good margin?
They don’t exactly say who came in second and third, but it appears that the Bimmer pulled silver. The author considers that it’s quality, luxury, attention to detail and engineering justify the lust that many have for BMW while basically saying that this base version was lacking enough in power and handling qualities to be uncompetitive at the price. He considers the much more expensive 6-cylinder 325e to be fully lustworthy at any price. The Audi definitely came in first in this test, though. The all-wheel-drive system is the same as that used in the famously successful rally-racing Quattros. The smooth 5-cylinder engine had excellent response and adequate power. Despite not being first in any of the listed performance categories, it walked away with the test based on its excellent handling, overall quality and high level of equipment for the money.
As a point of historical perspective, the 2020 Audi equivalent, the A3 Quattro, goes 0-60 in 5.4 seconds (almost exactly half 1985’s time). It costs $36,500, which at $15,300 adjusted to 1985 Dollars is actually less than they charged in 1985 while having more standard equipment. The state of our world is at times lamentable, but things like this remind us in some ways it’s getting better!
Whether Cadillac had done right by the Cimarron could be looked at two ways. One is that Cadillac made significant improvements. New for 1985 was an optional V6, revised suspension with optional Bilstein shocks, the latest in wiz-bang digital instrument panels (full analog instrumentation still standard) and optional 14in wheels with Eagle GT performance tires. The base price was still under $13,000 and now included a fuel-injected 2.0L engine (since 1983, shared with other J-cars), 5-speed manual (also since 1983 and shared with other J’s, the V6 still had a 4-speed), and power windows, locks and antenna (all newly standard for 85). The front end was lengthened and revised, but still tasteful.
The other way to look at it is that three years is a long time. In 1981, Cadillac could be forgiven, with only a year or so development time, for offering a lightly modified Chevrolet Cavalier. Three years is enough car-development time to do almost anything, though, and the mid-cycle refresh for the Cimarron could have been much more ambitious. It still shared all its sheetmetal, standard drive train and even dashboard with the other J-cars. The optional V6 was the exact same engine used in many other GM cars. The 1985 1/2 Cimarron was a much improved 1982 Cimarron, but you could certainly argue that by this time it should have been far more evolved and was essentially still a lightly modified Cavalier. It was now obvious that Cadillac wasn’t serious about raising its compact luxury sedan above its plebeian roots or trying to truly compete with foreign sport sedans.
The mid-year 1985 revisions seen in the 1985 MT article would be the most substantial changes Cadillac bestowed on the Cimarron. Sales increased slightly in 1986, but fell off fast for its last two years. They continued to make minor enhancements and increases in standard equipment without much increase in price through 1988. So, the 1988 survivor we looked at yesterday was definitely the best Cimarron made. If they had introduced that car in 1982, they might have had a success on their hands. They would have been throwing down the gauntlet that they really wanted to compete. If they had then followed that up as soon as possible with even more substantial enhancements, both visual and functional, who knows what could have been possible? Maybe some of those Yuppies could have been convinced that Cadillac was a player.
In yesterday’s article, I called the Cimarron Cadillac’s Flagship Of Mediocrity. By the end, it wasn’t a bad little car, but “not a bad little car” is a terrible standard for the Standard Of The World. Selling a mediocre car when they needed to have a fantastic one was truly a deadly sin for Cadillac (officially GM’s #10).
But what say you? Is there any way the Cimarron project could have been successful, or was it doomed from the J-car jump? Is there any realistic way in the early 80’s that Cadillac could have gotten in and been competitive in the Yuppie car market? Would those status-conscious rejectors of tradition ever have accepted anything with a crest on it?
As one of GM’s most famous and flagrant missteps ever, the Cimarron has been covered plenty here at Curbside Classic. It’s been several years since we have had an in depth look, though, and never any vintage magazine articles. Here are a couple of the previous reviews:
Curbside Classic: Cimarron by Cadillac – GM’s Deadly Sin #10 by Cadillac
Curbside Classic: 1984 Cadillac Cimarron – Poor Execution Meets Bad Timing
The Pitch Man
*Special Cimarron Bonus Section: I’ve been wondering if the Cimarron was an overpriced Cavalier, or if it was more of a regular priced Cavalier after taking into account all the standard equipment that you’d pay for as options with the Chevy. Have you wondered the same thing? Well, I did the math so you don’t have to.
Using my handy Standard Catalog of American Cars, as well as brochures , I calculated what a Cavalier would cost if equipped as closely as possible to a Cimarron.
1982 Cavalier CL sedan with 1.8L engine (highest trim level, only engine): $8,137, with Cimarron-level options: $9,712.
1982 Cimarron with 1.8L engine and no options: $12,181
The gap turned out to be $2,469, though the Caddy came standard with several things that weren’t available on the Chevy, most notably leather seats. So, for 1982, Cadillac’s pricing was a bit ambitious and there was a definite premium charged just for the Cadillac badge. How about a few years later, when Cadillac may have had a bit more realistic and humble appreciation for the Cimarron’s prospects in the market?
1986 Chevrolet Cavalier RS sedan with 2.8L V6 (highest trim model, top engine): base price $8,451, optioned as close as possible to base Cimarron (V6): $11,361
1986 Cadillac Cimarron with 2.8L V6, no other options : $13,228
So, $1,867 difference (and a smaller percentage difference, since prices generally were slightly higher) and the 1986 Cimarron came standard with even more equipment not available on the Cavalier, such as: power antenna ($65 option on Buicks), dual electric remote mirrors ($91 option on Buicks) plus a number of smaller items like: front and rear center armrests, fancier pushbutton climate controls, etc. Plus, it still came with leather seats (Cadillac charged $400 for leather in the Eldorado and Seville, and you could get leather-edged cloth seats for a credit, not available in 82), nicer seats apart from the leather trim, leather wrapped steering wheel ($105 option on DeVilles), nicer-looking fake aluminum dash trim, etc. Perhaps the Cadillac also came with some intangibles like smoother ride, better paint and more care in assembly, but that may not be the case at all.
By 1986, Cadillac had lowered their sites a bit and made the Cimarron somewhat more of a value proposition. If 1982 was the original deadly sin, at least the latter day version of the Cimarron was more righteously priced. By then it not only looked like, but was certainly priced more like, the very well-equipped Cavalier it was.
I purchased an new Escort in 1986. Factory A/C, AM/FM stereo, overhead console display (kind of useless really), 5 speed, dual electric outside mirrors, rear defroster, composite halogen headlamps. No luxury cruiser by far, but I had it for 100,000 trouble free miles. $7000 out the door.
I was a fresh lawyer and paid $12k for a VW GTI. I see that a Cimarron would not have been much more. But it didn’t matter because I never considered one for a nanosecond. I did try to test drive a Cavalier Type 10 stick like a cousin owned, but the dealer (a big dealer, too) had nothing remotely like it and let me drive a rental-grade version with an automatic. 2 minutes into that test drive I knew I was wasting my time.
I bought an ’86 GTi as well that year…I had it until I bought my current car (’00 Golf). Guess I still drink the VW coolaid, as my prior car was a ’78 Scirocco.
My parents bought an ’84 Pontiac Sunbird, based partly I supposed on my sister and brother-in-law’s prior purchase of an ’84 Sunbird. Though I think my sister’s Sunbird did better than my parents’, the ’84 has the distinction in my departed Father’s opinion as the worst car he ever owned. The car lost its timing belt when almost new, and a replacement 2.0 engine at about 40k miles (they did normal maintenance on it. The car got handed down to my youngest sister to take to college and the 2nd engine (which was replaced new at the dealer) threw a rod, at under 80k miles, it was junked by my Father who was fed up with it. Not only that, it had numerous other issues, leaking power steering high pressure hose, bad headlight switch, etc. that would make you think we beat on the car, which isn’t the case…though my Father traded cars much more frequently than I, he did get regular maintenance done on it and wasn’t particularly hard on his cars. Not sure if the Cadillac would have been any better, but I have my doubts…I think other than the luxury touches the bones were still the standard GM stuff.
My sister’s car lasted a bit longer, despite being up in Vermont, and getting rusty (my Parents live in the sunbelt and their Sunbird was OK body wise).
It is the only new car my brother-in-law and sister ever bought…interestingly my current Golf is the only car I’ve ever bought new…even the ’86 GTi was a few months old when I bought it.
Doing things on the cheap and lazy never works out well, especially up against someone near the top of their game.
A friend’s parents bought a Cimmaron, probably a 1982 model. The weren’t yuppies; they were empty-nesters. The kids had all moved out, so they downsized from their ’78 Cutlass Supreme (I remember it was a ’78 model, because our family had a ’79) to a Cimmaron.
There is a logic to that choice. A Cutlass Supreme shared its bones with more-pedestrian Malibus, but it appealed to people who wanted a little more style and luxury. A Cimmaron plausibly offered one more rung up that latter, if you didn’t dig too deeply into the specifications.
They hated their Cimmaron. I don’t remember their specific beefs, but it quickly was replaced in their driveway by a Honda Accord, which they loved. I’ll bet they took a bath on the trade-in.
This was part of a larger trend in our leafy, suburban neighborhood of Accords replacing Cutlasses. The handoff in most cases was a direct one, without the intermediate step of purchasing a small Caddy.
It would be interesting to know what they didn’t like about the Cimarron. I’ll bet it had a lot to do with the engine, which probably burned quite a few firat year customers. The 83 had a much improved engine, but it was too late for first impressions.
I think there may have been reliability issues, but I don’t think the J-bodies were particularly troublesome by the standards of the day, so I could be wrong about that. It has been almost 40 years, so I don’t trust my recollection.
If I recall correctly, J-car reliability issues stemmed from uneven quality control, as opposed to baked-in problems (such as those that plagued the X-car).
They were definitely far better than the X-cars in that regard.
It was possible to get a great one, or a not-so-great one.
i grew up in an era that basically a Chevy could be made into a “Chevy” version of a Cadillac, i loved the idea of a Caprice pulling into Cadillac territory or a Monte Carlo being considered a “baby Eldorado”. as a teenager i loved the idea of a Chevy with a leather interior(Ford did this more often and better with the LTD). but a Cadillac trying to be a Chevy………………not good. This was the begining of the tarnishing of the Cadillac name. They should have waited and done like they did with the beautiful 1st gen Seville. The cimarron after 1985 was pretty darn good. but too late. Really great write up Jon!!!
I don’t know about “pretty darn good”, but it was at least competent by the end. I think it could have found some success if its Cavalier roots weren’t so blatantly obvious.
Was the Cimarron S ever built?
Who knows, but Cadillac should have made that an option package!
reading the Cimarron S, it was a what if excercise that Motor Trend cooked up in their minds as a hotter sports sedan version of the Cimarron.
Motor Trend did something like that fairly recently (in October of 2019) with an article about a “what-if” Accord Type-R….
https://www.motortrend.com/news/honda-accord-type-r-preview-rendering/
I don’t know if this is a regular feature, but it shows that they engage in these types of exercises.
The irony here is that the “Cimarron S” is practically exactly what Isuzu did with their J-body, the Aska. Their top tier was the Irmscher turbo (Yes, that Irmscher, of Opel tuning fame).
The regular grade 2.0 Isuzu Aska was sold in New Zealand as a Holden Camira handling was like being on tip toes and nervous they were not much of a drivers car my father totalled his one on the way to work the body shells were very strong it went end for end down a 20 metre bank backwards he climbed out of the wreckage grabbed his briefcase and thumbed a ride to his morning job unhurt except for a cut on the wrist. Irnsher didnt do anything to the standard cars. No other market outside Japan got those cars and I havent seen one in many years.
Am I the only one who thinks its an almost line-for-line deadringer for the ’86 Cavalier Z24, but 5 years before that car actually existed? Could GM have cribbed this drawing from MT???
For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these: “It might have been!”
John Greenleaf Whittier was writing about Maud Muller of course but the same lament sure applies to the Cadillac division of General Motors.
Styllistically, it would have helped, though likely at great expense, if the greenhouse didn’t shout, “Cheap J-Car” even with the affectation of a Hofmeister kink.
Quite an article, Jon, thank you for posting.
I wasn’t expecting the positive press on this car. Whether that was a function of the appalling state of the car market in 1981, inexplicable benevolence of the magazines in softening their blow against Cadillac’s incomplete effort, or the Cimarron being genuinely decent in the short-term criteria the auto writers care about is anyone’s guess.
Thanks! I think a little of all of the above. Cadillac was at least trying to build the type of car they liked. Perhaps they were a bit flattered that GM was finally listening to what they had been saying for years.
Cadillac and GM would have been smart to make the 2.8 V-6 a Cimmaron exclusive. They could have even offered fuel injection on it for a little extra. That would have justified some of the price Cadillac was asking for it and even generate some buff market buzz. But, just as the Seville was a frankensteined Nova, the bones of the Cimmaron doomed it to Deadly Sin Top 10 status.
I think the decline in sales at Cadillac wasn’t due to the price of gas, it was due to their offerings and the perceptible decline in quality. Lincoln did the same thing with the Granada and that worked out about the same.
People shopping a 1981 Eldorado for $19,000 in 1981 dollars shouldn’t have been bitching about gas being more expensive, not when a Caprice was $8,000.
There is no comparison between the Seville and the Cimmaron….Although they share a basic platform, the Seville would use very few stock parts from those assemblies on its new car, requiring almost everything to be designed from the ground up. Most importantly the public had no impression it was related to the Nova….Conversely I can’t believe how lazy the Cimarron was…Only different endcaps front and rear…It even used the same dashboard and gauges…
Another consideration…The Seville was an unqualified success…the Cimmaron….an embarrassing failure
Very interesting. This made me curious, so I checked my Consumer Guide Auto series books to see how their take differed from those of the car magazines (thinking that Consumer Guide would be more objective and less prone to fawning over any new car).
In Auto ’82, CG seemed intrigued by the idea of a small Cadillac, but stopped short of being enthusiastic… they remarked about the poor performance and high price for what it offered. They’re criticisms weren’t nearly as damning as hindsight suggests they should have been, and it seems like they were wondering whether the Cimarron would be successful or not.
By 1985, they were much more critical. It was clear then that the car was a failure.
Once they V-6 came out, Consumer Guide admitted it was much improved, but they still criticized it for being too expensive for what it offered.
But all of this makes me wonder, if the Cimarron — the very definition of a poorly conceived product — got such favorable reviews, just imagine how glowing the reviews would have been if the car was just a smidgen better? It seems like folks really wanted this concept to succeed, which makes GM’s failure here all the more exasperating.
GM/Cadillac could not catch up to the stiffer german bodywork. Even today most modern GM products cannot compete with the structure of a 30 year old BMW 3 series.
I think these reviews show how much GM benefited from what we later came to identify as the “Toyota-Honda Aura”. The magazines expect that the cars will be good and give them every benefit of the doubt. GM used to be the beneficiary of this treatment. And not without reason – both Ford and Chrysler were shitshows in 1979-81, but GM had continued turning out decent cars through it all, like the 1977 B body.
On one hand, I extend them some credit – the world was ending in 1980. We were running out of oil and everyone knew we had to make do with less. The New Yorker was a Volare and would soon be a K car. Cadillac had nothing smaller than the Eldo/Seville and needed to get there fast. They did a lot for what little time they had.
On the other hand, though, there was that GM hubris. They probably thought that the J car would be a legitimate competitor with Euro and Japanese stuff. They didn’t know what they didn’t know. By 1985 everyone in the world knew that these had failed, but I am not sure that Cadillac did. By then the world was returning to normal and these ceased to be a priority. In their defense, they were better cars than the ballyhooed Cateras.
Hey –
I’ve heard that the expensive and exclusive French restaurant in town is now serving their version of an Egg McMuffin! Critics said that the English muffin with Canadian bacon and egg with a slice of cheese looks like an Egg McMuffin, but comes with an exclusive Hollandaise Sauce! The secret sauce makes eating one a gourmet experience. It is the most inexpensive item on the restaurant’s menu at only $11 per breakfast sandwich.
Make it a combo with their exclusive French-pressed New Orleans style coffee for only $14!
Hoo-Boy!
In 1982, this car didn’t look like a Cadillac – it looked like a Chevy at doubled the price. Right down to every door, roof, and fender. Inside it looked like a Chevy that had leather seating surfaces. Why would anyone buy that? The last thing you want to do after plunking that kind of money down is parking next to its twin at half the price.
Sure, on paper it was passable. In reality, you have streets filled with J-cars, K-Mart parking lots filled with them, and they all looked the same. Give me a break – I was alive back then – no one wanted to join the Blue-Light-Special folks when they drove into their exclusive golf course parking lots. The Cimarron looked like a cheap little car.
GM pimped out the Cadillac name in a belief that the brand loyalty behind it wasn’t all that smart. It sold to retirees who thought they were getting a real Cadillac like the ones they wanted during their careers.
You blew it big time, GM. Everyone knew it in 1981 and ever since. These car buff magazines were just blowing smoke.
It’s too bad the Cadillac guys didn’t have the Lincoln Versailles to show how poorly a cheap car gussied up to luxury levels would sell. Oh wait . . . 🙂
Good point, LOL!
Whenever I see one of these, I think of a story told by my friend.
His grandparents had recently purchased a brand-new, loaded 1985 Buick LeSabre four-door sedan. Meanwhile, his grandmother’s friend was excited to show off her brand-new Cadillac.
Which turned out to be a Cimarron.
My friend’s grandmother was polite, and said nice things about her friend’s new Cimarron. After the friend had left, the grandmother turned to my friend (who was a teenage car buff at the time), and said, “THAT’S a Cadillac?!”
Oh, good gravy. That Motor Trend article, at least the parts I read before my stomach and ribs made different but equally-urgent requests that I stop, strikes me as an overinflated version of a Cadillac press release. No wonder the buff books got that nickname and their reputation for what we might nowadays call fake news. I especially like their mention (on p. 39) of a “brief visit with the world’s only running Cimarron”. Er, quite.
What, you don’t believe that the Cimarron was “so well constructed, so appropriately appointed, and so cleverly marketed that it will whisk the competition of their feet” and that “the performance of the 1.8 engine is exceptional”?
The level of pandering in that article is remarkable, it is nice to be reminded that the auto rags produced garbage even back then.
My understanding is MTCOTY was openly for sale in the ’70s and ’80s. I don’t doubt it a bit, and I’d have zero difficulty believing that’s still the case. And I’m picking on Motor Trend here, but I don’t for a second think the others are any different.
As a teenager in the late 70s and early 80s, I used to follow the domestic MTCOTY competitions quite closely. No question, the magazine read like a press release for most new cars they reviewed. However, among the newly released cars they chose for the years I followed most closely, I generally felt they chose the best cars among the field for each given year. At least between roughly 1975 and 1985. Of course, many of those cars later had terrible reputations for recalls, poor workmanship, and/or poor quality/reliability reputations. But much of the time, the cars they picked seemed valid winners over the other cars in a given year’s competition.
Here’s the list (below) from 1975 to 1985. I don’t recall all the potential choices for each year. But from my memory at the time, I thought their picks were legit given the cars they were up against. For example, the K-cars deserved to win over the under-powered ’81 Escort/Lynx.
1985 Volkswagen GTI
1984 Chevrolet Corvette
1983 AMC Alliance / Renault Alliance
1982 Chevrolet Camaro Z28
1981 Chrysler K Cars, Dodge Aries and Plymouth Reliant
1980 Chevrolet Citation
1979 Buick Riviera S
1978 Chrysler, Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon
1977 Chevrolet Caprice
1976 Chrysler, Dodge Aspen and Plymouth Volare
1975 Chevrolet Monza 2+2
Those do seem to be reasonable choices, based on design, engineering and market significance at the time. A few of them led troubled lives or werent successful, but they all seemed like important cars at the time.
GM did the same thing with the Corvette. (IIRC) When they changed the round tail lights to GASP! square ones for the ZR-1, everyone at first had a fit! The reason given was to ensure its recognition as a “special” Corvette. The very next year, ALL Corvettes had the square tail lights. I remember reading a statement framing the thinking “why should I pay all these extra $$$ for a Corvette that looks like any regular one?”
BTW: The “over mascaraed, Camaro-esque” ones on the C-7 seemed not to have had great appeal either! 🙂
True, but the ZR1 was a huge performance improvement over the visually similar regular Vettes, so kind of the opposite of the Cimarron situation.
I remember the C/D feature when it was new. It’s crucial to remember when I first laid eyes on a Cimarron (in a magazine), I’d never seen a Cavalier in the flesh, much less 2 million of them. I’ve long thought history would be much more kind to the Cimarron if the Cavalier (and other J body cars) never existed and the Caddy had to be judged on its own merits. Looking at the 1982 model in isolation, or compared to the cars C/D considered its competition, it seemed reasonably competitive, and a good-looker to boot. When new, the car’s un-Brougham-ness was shocking – this was the first new Caddy since the bustleback Seville remember. Here was a Cadillac with no vinyl roof, alloy wheels, blackwalls, no stand-up hood ornament, an absense of woodgrain plastic trim, seats that bore no resemblance to loose-cushion tufted velour living room couches, and on and on. C/D wanted to love it, but couldn’t cause it obviously wasn’t quiet there yet. And oh yes, there was that part about “If you look closely, you might notice that the Cimarron … shares its roof, doors, fenders, and hood with the Cavalier.” The problem was, you didn’t have to look closely…
C/D did a major profile on Leonard Wanetik who was brought in to explain the BMW ethos to Cadillac long-timers and was instrumental in developmental direction. What became of him? I never read of him again.
I was curious about that myself. I’m guessing Wanetik left the program pretty early and wasn’t replaced with another Yuppie whisperer, judging by the Cimarron’s relative lack of progress.
Nice ad for “Elite Laser 917”
And look how expensive the VCRs and blank tapes were at J&R Music World (magazine page 41).
Wow, I didn’t notice that. Thise are high, even without adjusting for inflation. $15 for a blank VHS, yikes! LPs and 8 tracks are pretty reasonable though at $5-7.
Well, sure, and in 1984 a 10-pack of 3.5″ diskettes was around $50 ($125 adjusted).
I remember paying about $100 for the 10 pack of 3.5 inch diskettes in 1985, and they weren’t even 1.44 MB, let alone 2.88 MB, they were 720K back then….this was for work.
I was working on two different platforms that needed them, the end product I was working on had two of them, plus the test equipment we were using to test it also used that format. The tester had 9″ fans on the back that sucked in air through the drives and quickly fouled the heads on the drive…we had to keep getting them replaced…plus would often scratch the media on the diskettes.
I think I paid about $9400 for the ’86 GTi I bought a year later…and it lasted well beyond those drives…I had until I bought my current (’00) Golf.
Sure, but their Maxell prices are so low they can’t even advertise them.
I do love that rendering of the Cimarron S that Motor Trend cooked up. Apparently GM loved it as well, but instead of applying that look to the Cimarron they applied it to the Chevy… as the Z24. Hell, even MT commented on a black out grille with 3 horizontal bars…. which is exactly what the Z24 got. Although the Z24 wasn’t available as a sedan, they could have taken the same treatmet and applied it to the Cimarron to have a small sports sedan. But then, it would have still looked too similar to the Z24.
I’d forgotten how much I liked the the “boxy” Cavalier coupe. Especially in Z24 dress. I drove one once in ’91 and it was a nice driving car.
The 4 Dr was a Celebrity.
I have to wonder why Chevy *didn’t* offer the Z24 as a 4-door sedan, whether the division-level brass didn’t believe in “sporty” four-doors yet or whether that was being reserved for Pontiac by the Fourteenth Floor.
For that matter I always wondered what the point of the J-body 2 door sedan was, other than being the cheapest model and the jumping-off point for the convertible. The Type-10 hatchback coupe was so much better looking.
I think that the most damning thing here was what followed the Cimarron, which was radio silence. Rather than redoubling their efforts and taking the opportunity to build a ground up compact sports sedan, the folks at Cadillac just declared the “small world car” experiment a failure and twiddled their thumbs for a decade, while their competitors got ever more ingrained into the profitable upwardly mobile crowd.
Then, they tried again with the rebadged Opel that was the Catera, before finally striking a chord with the CTS.
But by then, it was too late. Those same people who bought 318is in the 80s now have no issues dropping $100K on a loaded-up S-Class or X7, and Cadillac is mostly in the same position it’s been in for years.
The A-car was by no means much more than an X-car with the most disastrous flaws addressed, but I saw a listing for an ’86 Cutlass Ciera SL coupe that would have made a far more convincing small Cadillac than the Cimarron ever was. Seriously, take a look at this car’s interior:
https://barnfinds.com/nicely-equipped-1986-oldsmobile-cutlass-ciera-sl-coupe/
I drove or rode in most variations of the A-car without seeing one as classy, but the interior of that Oldsmobile looks more luxurious than many a Cadillac’s. The A-car was never offered without the option of a reasonably-peppy V6. The first Cimarron was the slowest non-diesel car that Road & Track had tested for a year or two. I think the magazines were hesitant to say how bad the Cimarron really was because they had been lobbying for something like it. In reality, Cadillac’s prospects would have been better served by a tasteful American luxury car based on the A-car. Not being able to make time in the Alps didn’t hinder 1st generation Seville sales in the US or the UK.
Thanks for the link. That is one of my favorite Olds from the 80s.
Too bad it’s not black with white lettered tires.
(Everything should be, dontcha know)
That Olds with the new smoother coupe roof was yet another GM car that arrived too late. Instead, earlier models starting in 1982 had stiff upright rooflines even on the “coupes” which were really two-door sedans which failed to appeal to the millions who bought GM’s midsize coupes in the 1970s and early 80s. By the time they finally revised the rooflines to give them some sportiness, buyers had moved on to foreign competition.
BTW, I was all-in on BMWs and the BMW CCA in the ’80s. Bought my first new BMW in 1988. The only car I would spend 100K on today is an anniversary edition Land Cruiser with the cool logos. Germany is nothing like West Germany when it comes to cars. Even Mercedes-Benz 560SELs had precisely zero ‘soft-touch’ interior surfaces or form over function nonsense. The last thing an ’80s West German car buyer wanted was over-styled ChiCom-compliant gin palaces on wheels, which is all Germany sells now. The people buying high end German embarrassments today are people who were only shopping for prestige all along, or people who need to keep up with the Joneses. There’s an excellent chance they were driving Eldorados or Jaguars if they were buying anything forty years ago.
The 1986-1991 Cadillac Seville was pretty darn small for a Cadillac. Or at least visually appeared “small.” It was also much more expensive than Cimarron and did not sell well. I don’t think Cadillac needed anything smaller than the Seville during those years. Once the Seville got “big” again in 1992 it allowed space for the Catera to be developed.
GM had full-lines at Buick, Pontiac, and Oldsmobile during those years and did not need to have a “compact Cadillac.” The Buick Somerset was essentially the second gen Cimarron sans Wreath and Crest.
As in love with my A-car Cadillac idea as I am, you are probably right that there was no need for a Cadillac smaller than the 3rd generation Seville by 1986. It also demonstrates that whatever GM did with Cadillac after 1979, the execution would have been abominable. Besides, fuel economy was only important for CAFE reasons by then.
I think Cadillac could have done some things in the 1980’s to at least stay competitive. Such as updating the Fleetwood Brougham sometime in between 1980 and 1992. They did a mild update in 1989 and brought back the gas 350 to the options list but by then the damage was done. Also the refresh stunk of jealously because Lincoln (whose Town Car was mostly unchanged throughout the 1980’s) was named Motor Trend Car of the Year in 1990.
Basically, this move was telling customers “we only care about you when our Business Model and Competitive Forces say we have to.” Cadillac’s customer base reply was “Oh, so you say the Lexus and BMW dealers are a 1/2 mile up the road…ok…see ya!”
Even today GM could legitimize all of their laughable Cadillac sedans by offering Suburban-calibration V8s in the mid-range trims. They won’t.
The slightly refreshed Brougham and the majorly revised Town Car both came out as 1990 models. The Brougham was just really overdue for an update by that time, though it was supposed to die after 84 but kept alive due to low gas prices and its popularity. The 90 TC was a tremendously effective redesign and made the Caddy look quite old in comparison. That’s its charm today, of course, as the 90-92 Brougham with the 5.7 option is a really desirable car with a cult following, not so much the Lincoln even though it is still a really nice car. Buyers had to wait til 93 for the majorly revised Fleetwood, which I agree was not as successful as Lincoln’s.
Pity poor Cadillac. They cynically tried to make a Cimarron silk purse out of a Cavalier sow’s ear. And who can blame them? It had worked for decades, then even with the Nova-based Seville.
But it was a whole different ballgame competing with the Europeans who had amlLWE sport sedans engineered that way from the ground up. Slathering a bunch of chrome and leather onto a plebian, cheaply engineered subcompact would surely work just as well, right?
It’s kind of sad since, as a really nice Cavalier, the Cimarron wasn’t that bad. But it was never going to be a domestic alternative to the German cars. I can’t imagine anyone cross-shopping an Audi or BMW against a Cimarron actually choosing the latter.
A quick sum-up for the TL-DR crowd:
In 1981, the magazines that depended on GM advertising pretended the Cimarron wasn’t hopelessly outclassed. In 1985, the magazines that depended on GM advertising pretended that Cadillac had addressed most of the issues that had made the Cimarron hopelessly outclassed. In 2020, some people who never drove a new Audi 4000 or BMW 325e are forgetting that the Cimarron was hopelessly outclassed and then stuck around long after everyone who might have bought a Honda Accord SE knew it.
Just a reminder that the J car was developed as a European car, the second generation Opel Ascona. In Europe, the Ascona was competition to the Audi 80 (4000 in US) and VW Passat.
I don’t think the cynicism of GM’s launch of the Cimarron was fully felt until at least 1983 or so. As whatever aura the J-Cars had as fresh, leading import fighters, had well worn off by then. And many more openly wondered what on Earth was GM thinking?
I liked the name, and the wheels in the lead pic. These reviews bring back many memories of that era. Many people still felt positive there was hope for GM.
Thank you for this article. While I lived through this era and like most thought WTF when this came out, I think I understand GM’s thinking a bit better. Despite GM’s relative success as the ’80s began, the second oil price shock and recession in seven years had to send some panic through the 14th floor.
GM’s aggressive downsizing bet in the late ’70s paid dividends and exempted them for a while from the stigma that too much big car product had at Ford and Chrysler. That leadership led to bets on too much FWD, avoiding the gas guzzler tax at all costs, and an excessive second round of downsizing. These bets were hard on the GM Divisions to varying degrees, but absolutely devastating at Cadillac. Add to this colossal screw-ups in quality, execution, reliability, marketing and styling and “The Standard of the World” was no more.
Local J cars from Holden had decent handling back in the day but there was another version from Japan that was labeled Holden for the NZ market alone that handled like a dog on lino, more customers lost to rivals.
The reviews are very much of the Curate’s Egg* variety.
As kiwi points out above, the J-cars had a chassis that could be made to handle with real excellence, still whilst riding very well, as the local Holden Camira proved (and I can personally attest, they really were excellent even years later). Had Caddy got this right – clearly, not impossible – and installed the injected Family 2 engine from launch, the praise would have been unequivocal, the driving experience more than acceptable to an import buyer, and, with a few more dollars spent on panel differentiation, the entire trajectory of Caddy itself rather different. Instead, they went for the mark-up. Leather isn’t free, but for the thing to be 25% or more than a loaded Cav really shows the managerial greed. And incompetence.
Comments above about pay-offs to mags and journos etc are largely irritating bunkum, or at least, irrelevant to the enthusiast reader who just didn’t bother with embarrassing salivations such as MT produced 9and dear god, ain’t this one a doozy!) Sure, there are always nationalistic variations, often almost excusable by very different conditions in each market, but essentially, the bad cars were always called for what they were for the reasons that mattered to the enthusiast reader.
*(A cartoon in Punch in the 1880’s had a nervous young curate – junior priest – red-facedly midway through a boiled egg that his face shows us is clearly off, with the Bishop observing it to be so, and he replying: “Oh, er, yes, my Lord, but I assure you, some parts of it are really very good!”
Thanks for explaining the Curate’s egg! That metaphor definitely works here. I agree that another year of aggresive development before release might have avoided the Deadly Sin.
I tend to agree also, that I’ve never bought into the theory that the car mags were and are bought and paid for by auto companies. They have seemed to pull their punches at times, such as the 81 MT article here. But even as ridiculously positive as some of the statements I highlighted were, there is still some criticism in there. The 85 MT article hits the original Cimarron pretty hard and while complimenting the improvements made, says in no uncertain terms that it is not going to really compete in the market with the likes of BMW and Audi. I can live with some optimism and would rather ere on that side than read something relentlessly critical for sake of criticism.
I had a nicely optioned 1984 Firenza, the Oldsmobile Division’s J car. I always found it odd that the Olds and Buicks got a different (nicer) dashboard yet the Cimarron kept the same one as the Chevrolet and Pontiac. Strange. 🤷♂️🤔
Definitely weird, and a bad sign that Cadillac wasn’t willing to even spend the money on a new dash for 85. Even the Cavalier got a new dash in some models in 86 or 87 (Iforget which).
Motor Week did a follow up story on the second year Cimarron (MY 1983) where GM did some work on the engine and suspension. Based on the story, GM still had a way to go to compete with the imports.
Thanks for posting that, I hadn’t seen it. Reminds us you can only make a first impression once.
Looking at the MT cover, I have to think many readers would have looked at the photos of the Cavalier 4 door sedan, turned back to the Cimarron feature, looked at it, and drawn the obvious conclusion.
Holy LOL.
OMG, after watching that I think I want one!
LOL, did anyone at Cadillac notice the schematic shown from 1:16-1:25 is of a Cavalier and not a Cimarron? (note the forward-sloped front clip, bumper ridges, smaller console that doesn’t join with the dash, and different door trim)
Excellent write up, and what detail! I remember reading as a teen and feeling frustrated, although it really took a while to understand just how bad these cars were when the write-ups said they were generally ok. Liars. Quid pro quo anyone?
Now-please show us that Bandit 455! I loved reading about that, although if I recall that article was only 1-2 pages in length.
Thanks, I should do that one. It was a pretty short one, IIRC. I would really love to have one of those Bandits today!
Was the first-gen Honda Accord really perceived as a Audi/BMW competitor in its day, or did C/D just love Hondas then and now?
By price, size and equipment, it was right there in that class of “luxury compacts”, if the Accord (or Toyota Cresida) had a lot of options. Maybe not so much “sport sedan’ like the Europeans.
Here we are almost forty years later. Somehow, Cadillac still exists. The current small Cadillacs have large displacement turbocharged four cylinder engines, as if their competitors were dictating their offerings to tie their hands. A loaded Accord still makes a better luxury car, even if it no longer represents overall excellence the way it did a decade ago.
The Cimarron may have been the greatest brand-equity consumer of all time, but it certainly didn’t help that it arrived at the same time that Cadillac stopped delivering engines that worked in their traditional products. Unlike today’s situation though, I don’t think a meaningful percentage of Cadillac dealers would have taken buyouts over trusting GM to find compliance solutions to CAFE the way they are right now.
It isn’t a bad little car at all, Charlie Brown. All it needed is a little love–and a V6.
Two observations…The Cimarron got 19 MPG?!? I get 22 with an 03 Lincoln Town Car. A concurrent Fleetwood Brougham probably got 14. 5 MPG payoff to drive a Cavalier…second, notice what was considered a classic car in 85…prewar luxury. It was crazy back then to think that a muscle car would ever be worth anything..they had all the appeal to the collector market of that time that a dropped Civic with a carbon fiber hood and loud muffler has today..
The car I would have bought in 1985 in this class is neither the Cimarron V6 or any of the small German sedans, but rather the new-that-year Nissan Maxima. For about the same money, you got the sweet 3.0 V6, very plush velour multiadjustable seats (partially power-adjusted on both sides), a fancy stereo with equalizer, rear seatbacks that folded down, cornering lights, a body and interior not shared with a cheaper car, true keyless entry (like Ford/Lincoln has long used, except with keypad on both front doors), a four-speed automatic (5 speed manual on sport model) – none of which the Cimarron had. To say nothing of the upscale ambiance and reliability the Cimarron (and German alternatives) could only dream about.
I don’t think the V6 was ever offered on this generation Cavalier sedan – V6 availability was limited to the Z24 two-doors and the wagon (the latter a unicorn), presumably to avoid stepping on the Cimarron’s toes. The only other J-body sedan available with a V6 was the Olds Firenza; Pontiac and Buick used turbo fours instead.
As I stated back when the article first came out, the Cimarron was actually a pretty nice Cavalier. The problem was Cadillac dealers were impatient for a small car, and the GM geniuses thought they could pass the Cimarron off as an American BMW or Audi (and charge the same prices).
The Buick Skhawk at least had some unique front sheetmetal but was about the limit they could take the J-car upmarket. A Cadillac J-car was too much of an overreach, especially when it looked way too much like a Cavalier. Eventually, the Cimarron got a unique front end (with composite headlights) and a V6 but, by then, it was too late.
Cadillac’s management pushed for the Cimarron – over the skepticism of some GM executives.
GM President Pete Estes told Ed Kennard, the Cadillac Division General Manager who was pushing for the Cimarron, “Ed, you don’t have time to turn the J-car into a Cadillac.”
Very interesting to look back at the turmoil in the car industry in the early 1980s. I bought a 1981 BMW 320i, which I still drive. People often give me thumbs up or ask if I want to sell it. Would they ask me to sell my Cimarron? (You know the answer).
I think Cadillac had a fundamental problem with this Cimarron (as well as many subsequent GM cars): it was a cheap-crap economy chassis tarted up with better seats and passed off to unsuspecting buyers as a luxury performance machine. No, it still had cheap-crap bones. You could feel it in the handling dynamics and assembly. It even used a carburetor. The Audi and BMW were not tarted up versions of a fundamentally cheaper car; they were built to be sold as you saw them. There was no Chevy or Fiat underneath. No wonder an entire generation of American buyers swore off cars from the Big 3 back then.
Arrogant GM always thought they could get away with mediocre, corner-cutting product and rely on aggressive marketing and nationalism.
As all too often, GM didn’t get this car done right until the last years.
This car would had made for a wonderful small Buick…..but never should had been called a Cadillac.
One thing I find interesting is that the original Escalade was just as lazy a badge-job as the Cimarron was, but it clicked that time and I think is still the best-selling Cadillac. Part of that could be “it’s basically a Chevy pickup underneath” is actually a positive selling point to livery services, but they mostly used sedans in the late ’90s when it debuted and would well into the 2010s. Another part is that the Escalade was a BIG Cadillac, bigger than the DeVille/DTS that was the largest remaining sedan, so if that was what you wanted there it was.
It’s sort of like how people say the Lexus ES300 was basically Camry. The Camry has always been a much better car than the Cavalier ever was, and the Suburban has long been an acceptable product to some of the highest income households in the US.
Sometimes I wonder if the Cimarron, if released from a European or Japanese brand, would be looked back on with respect, it’s deficiencies seen as quirks or charming qualities.
We in the west seem to look on our own products with reflexive embarrassment and self-consciousness. Local wines are assumed to be cheap, local bands are assumed to be talentless, local art assumed to be bad. Rebadge any of these things as being from distant lands, and people are far more accepting. For example, I have a friend who refused to buy a Pontiac Vibe because it was underpowered. Instead, he bought a Toyota Matrix (with the 1.8).
I don’t think it was a mistake that the early reviews were kind. It’s possible that if the Cimarron were an entry-level Audi, it would not be reviled and perhaps be remembered fondly.
I beg to differ to a certain extent. You do have a point about westerners looking down on their own products, culture as well as people, but I feel that wasn’t the case with the much maligned Cimarron. As I see, the problem was the fact that Cadillac essentially tarted up a Chevy Cavalier and decided to ask premium price for it without any real offering in power, comfort, luxury ride, engineering or sporty performance. It got nothing of those and it only hurt Cadillac’s image which already was in the downs because of diminishing quality controls and cost cutting measures (cheapening interiors, V8-6-4 and diesel fiasco and so on).
If one adds these wrong moves to an array of mistakes that Cadillac kept making during the rest of the 80’s, the result was a loss of market share at the end of that decade, and the fact that Cadillac no longer stood for quality and engineering. “The Standard of the World” became non existent.
Putting aside those facts, I made myself these questions:
Would the Cimarron have had a different fate had been marketed as an Audi? It would have damaged their reputation as well. Anybody who bought an Audi expected a car with sporty ride, good handling and good performance, not tarted up interiors. Same with BMW. I honesty I don’t think a customer cross shopping both german manufacturers would have chosen the Cimarron, even as an entry car.
Was the Cimarron a bad car per se? It could be considered average. Not great, but not bad… as long as it wasn’t branded a Cadillac, much less asking top dollars for it.
Would the Cimarron have been respected if Nissan/Honda/Toyota had sold it? The same case with Audi. Each one of those manufacturers had better offerings in the entry, mid and high levels. To mention an example, a Nissan Maxima offered a V6, plushier interiors and a four speed automatic; none to be found on the Cimarron.
Does it mean that Cadillac never had business in manufacturing the Cimarron?
That car would have hit the jackpot had it been engineered properly, with the utmost respect for the loyal customer who still bought Cadillacs and Chevys. That means it should have come with a fuel injected V6 engine, standard for all trim levels, rear independent suspension, four speed automatic/ five speed optional and all wheel drive. Not only that: They should have worked harder in designing a body that didn’t resemble the work horse Cavalier. They had the experience with the first generation Cadillac Seville, whose chassis/underbody was originated from the Chevy Nova, but a major engineering effort was put to “hide” its humble underpinnings. And no one was the wiser.
Sadly, Cadillac chose the worst path: Penny pinching in each possible way, just simply dressing the Cavalier with a tuxedo… and not a good one. What happened next? It became the automotive laughing stock.
As Cadillac was not willing to invest large amount of money in development and engineering for the Cimarron, perhaps the best route was to be sold as a luxury version of a compact Oldsmobile car. Its fate would have been different and as you said, these days would be remembered fondly.
This line really jumped out at me in the article:
The goal became “a car that a BMW owner or an Audi owner would not be unhappy with.”
Nothing like shoot for the best by having a lofty goal of, at a minimum, of making a car that they would be happy with. No, let’s undershoot and make it good enough for our purposes. Wrong attitude.
Growing up yuppie Marin County in the 80s, my parent was pretty social, and of our large friend group, only one person had an American car. We had a Volvo and Datsun, most had Peugeots, Toyotas, VWs… and truly, the idea of an American car was laughted at. Not really because of snobbery, but more just perceived quality and pragmatic purchases meant no way, American car. The handling, the largess.. just no, in every way.
Then the Cimarron came out and my mom, who’d deeply considered an MB 190 suddenly wanted a Cadillac. We certainly didn’t buy one (the ’67 Volvo was still running perfectly) but for a few years, every time we saw a Cimarron, my mom lusted. So, perhaps Caddy had an idea that, better made, could have clicked with foreign-focused buyers.
I love the side profile pic of the blue test car… it appears to be 4 different shades of blue.
That SCREAMS Cadillac quality.
It wasn`t a Cadillac Cimarron. it was a ‘Cimarron BY Cadillac’ for what it`s worth.