If I were to pinpoint a specific year when the flagship Cadillac Division of General Motors lost its mojo (yet to be recovered), it would have to be 1981. Bad product planning choices and a catastrophic powertrain strategy conspired to deliver the unthinkable: Cadillacs were suddenly underpowered, much less reliable and increasingly out-of-style. The brand that had been a “no-brainer” choice for American status seekers no longer looked as compelling, with rivals closing in from all sides to lure away Cadillac’s customer base. Let’s go back to 1981 with some period reviews of Cadillac and key competitors to dissect how this disaster unfolded.
In reality, trouble had been brewing for years. Cadillac’s reputation for prestige, ultra-luxury and quality had been burnished mightily from the end of World War II through the 1960s. Cadillacs were flashy, expensive and exclusive—an overstated exclamation point on the American dream and a globally understood expression of wealth and power.
A subtle shift occurred as the 1970s unfolded, and Cadillac’s definition of “substance” changed from being about gravitas and top-notch materials to simply meaning “mammoth.” The brand was able to coast on its former reputation for glory, because the cars were still flashy and buyers had been well-conditioned over the years to view Cadillac as “the best” American luxury car. But “too much car” would prove to be a problem.
The gas shocks of the 1970s, Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements and changing consumer tastes—toward efficiency and functionality—were all significant challenges for a brand that had built its reputation on hedonistic excess. To respond, Cadillac did initially make some smart moves to recalibrate its product line, including the Seville for ’75, the downsized DeVille/Fleetwood for ’77 and the downsized Eldorado for ’79.
Creating the world’s priciest Chevy Nova—aka the Seville—satisfied the growing demand for luxury cars with more manageable proportions. While in no way world-class, despite its positioning as being “Internationally-sized,” the Seville did maintain some important hallmarks that had come to define the Cadillac brand: it was very plush and distinctive looking (before GM started slapping the “formal roofline” on virtually the entire product line), it felt contemporary for the times, and it was quite expensive for what it was, thereby ensuring bragging rights for the “baby Caddy” at the country club.
GM’s 1977 downsizing program for its full-sized fleet was heralded as a brilliant move, and the corporation deserves a lot of credit for producing rational and well-executed versions of the traditional American big car. Cadillac might have been nervous about shrinking the scale of its C-Bodies, but the end result was well received. The market was ready for better big cars, including luxury cars, and Cadillac sold them by the truckloads. Plus, once again, the traditional Cadillac virtues remained intact. The DeVille and Fleetwood felt fresh and distinctive, had ample power with acceptable fuel economy (for a big Cadillac) courtesy of the 425 cubic inch V8, and the cars were cushy, trouble-free and set-and-forget easy. As Car and Driver pointed out in this review of the 1978 Coupe DeVille, “Surprise! Opulence can be fun.”
The all-new, downsized E-Body Eldorado for 1979 proved that Cadillac could incorporate up-to-date features like 4-wheel independent suspension, 4-wheel disc brakes, electronic fuel injection and front-wheel-drive into a luxurious, reliable package which accelerated and handled surprisingly well for a comfort-oriented American car. The ’79 Eldorado also looked every inch a Cadillac—and an exciting new one at that: in no-way did it come across as a shrunken mini-me version of its ultra-bloated predecessor, but rather a trim new take on Cadillac style.
So, initially at least, Cadillac looked to be on a path of correctly responding to a dramatically changing market, with more rational cars that still served up traditional Cadillac power, comfort and distinctive style. But with the impact of the 2nd Oil Embargo in 1979 hitting big cars hard, along with a tightening CAFE noose demanding ever better EPA fuel economy numbers, GM got caught like a deer in the headlights, and their resulting moves at the Cadillac division brought an end to the perennial golden goose.
That damage came into full view for 1981.
Car and Driver wanted to test the new Cadillac V8-6-4, which was the first use of variable-displacement technology by any automaker. So a dolled-up 1981 DeVille d’Elegance was put through the paces, and in the process a lot of Cadillac’s emerging problems were encapsulated. First off, let’s be clear—really big cars were really, really out-of-style in 1981. It wasn’t even the mediocre mileage that was the actual problem—if you were affluent enough to get a Cadillac you likely had the coin to fill the tank. Rather, the issue was perception: the biggest Cadillacs made you look gluttonous. Compounding matters was the “aerodynamic” facelift that had arrived for 1980 and continued thereafter, with the sloped hood, smoother sides and higher rear deck, made the cars look bigger and heavier than the ’77 to ’79 Cadillac C-Bodies, even though they actually weren’t.
So Cadillac was desperately fiddling with its V8 in the quest for any possible smidgen of additional efficiency. Displacement was dropped from 425 cubic inches down to 368 cubic inches for 1980, which brought the EPA mileage estimate up to 16 MPG combined, a 1 mile-per-gallon improvement compared with 1979. For 1981, the Rube Goldberg cylinder-deactivation contraption was added to the 368 V8, which eked-out one additional MPG in the combined EPA cycle. So, in theory at least, a 1981 Cadillac could go an extra 50 miles on a tank of gas compared to a 1979 Cadillac. With gas prices averaging $1.35 ($3.87 adjusted) in 1981, the cost-per-mile for a V8-6-4 was .08¢ (.23¢ adjusted) versus .09¢ (.26¢ adjusted) for the 425 V8. That was chump change for Cadillac customers. But what did impact them in the seat-of-the-pants was acceleration, which dropped from around 10 seconds 0-to-60 for the 425 V8 to around 12 seconds for the V8-6-4. Slower was never better in a Cadillac, especially for such a marginal mileage increase.
Plus, given that Caddy drivers would be more likely to floor the less powerful V8-6-4 just to get it moving quickly, mileage plunged. Car and Driver’s observed mileage was a mere 11 MPG, which was terrible for 1981. The results were even more embarrassing when compared with the 425 V8-powered Coupe DeVille C&D had tested in 1978, which had achieved actual mileage of 16 MPG, since the traditional large, lazy V8 didn’t have to work as hard to propel the huge, hefty car.
I always absolutely loved Car and Driver’s “Counterpoints” section back in the day, since the editors could be counted on to serve up unfiltered impressions. And some of those impressions were priceless. I still laugh out loud at David E. Davis Jr.’s description of the “whore’s drawers” interior. Jean Lindamood went for the jugular, and was entirely accurate in her assessment that the Cadillac’s chintzy interior, sloppy handling and jerkily pulsating V8 that was neither efficient nor quick hardly represented anyone’s “standard of the world.” And Csaba Csere noted that the big Caddy was a dying breed, with bad points that outweighed its good ones.
One juicy tidbit revealed in the Technical Analysis of the V8-6-4 was that Ford Motor Company tried—and rejected—the variable displacement technology since it wasn’t seen a delivering necessary benefits in exchange for the complexity. Unmentioned in the article but quickly discovered by Cadillac customers, was that the variable displacement system wasn’t ready for prime time, and was riddled with problems right out of the gate. Topping the list was that the de-activated cylinders would either be filled with too much or too little fuel, leading to gushing or gasping when the cylinders re-activated. Plus, the computing power deployed to operate the system wasn’t up to snuff and couldn’t respond quickly enough to driver inputs. Thus, the famous smooth, responsive Cadillac engine was turned into a surging, stuttering, sluggish lump and Cadillac dealer service bays were soon filled with irate customers. Longer-term reliability also proved to be dismal, as shall we say, performance did not improve with age….
One of the keys to Cadillac’s success through the years had been repeat purchasers. Owner loyalty and satisfaction were high, as was resale value. For many wealthy buyers it wasn’t enough just to have a Cadillac—you needed to have a new one. And for decades General Motors had the sense to keep the classic formula going strong so that each new Cadillac was felt to be an improvement over the one traded-in. All that came to a screeching halt in 1981 with the V8-6-4 (or the woefully underpowered 252 V6 or the shoddy, sluggish 350 V8 Diesel). Imagine trading in a 425-powered ’79 Cadillac for an ’81 model?!?! You’d be disappointed—and furious.
Plus, when this article was written, little did we know that the V8-6-4 would turn out to be a one-year-wonder for all models except the limousine. Cadillac quickly shelved the flawed V8-6-4 and pulled forward the under-developed, under-powered, unreliable and utterly underwhelming “High Technology” 4100 aluminum V8 for use in its big cars in 1982. Proof that things could indeed go from bad to worse for Cadillac, and those repeat customers lucky enough to miss a dismal V8-6-4 1981 model got saddled with something that was arguably even worse in ’82 (and beyond). Once Cadillac found itself of the slippery slope of subpar engines, the downward spiral accelerated quickly, even if the cars themselves didn’t….
In addition to the performance, efficiency and style problems, Cadillac also had a pricing problem in 1981. At $17,685 ($50,728 adjusted), the as-tested price on Car and Driver’s DeVille was pretty typical for a Cadillac at the time. But that price band meant the car was simultaneously too expensive and too cheap.
Let me explain.
For many affluent customers, it was hard to see the added value that came with the Cadillac badge, especially beginning in 1981 when Cadillac no longer offered any good engines. There were other GM C-Body options from the likes of Buick and Oldsmobile that offered comparable luxury with lower sticker prices and better engine/transmission combinations. Cross town rival Lincoln also became a better buy due to better powertrains. So the 1981 Cadillac had become over-priced for what it offered versus other domestics.
At the same time, Cadillac had fallen far behind in the snob appeal sweepstakes compared with rivals like Mercedes-Benz, who served-up a stratospheric reputation at nose-bleed prices. Plenty of rich people seek out signals to show just how much money they have, so being seen as someone who has lots to spend is perceived to be quite desirable. The higher the price of the car, the more vanity value provided. Relatively speaking, 1981 Cadillacs were dirt cheap compared to Mercedes-Benz models, which just didn’t cut it for people seeking to flaunt wealth.
To make my case, let’s have a look at some more road test summaries and ratings from Consumer Guide Auto Test 1981 to see how some very pragmatic testers evaluated Cadillac and some of its key competitors.
Since fuel economy was the name of the game in 1981, with smaller engines being seen as necessary, it’s no surprise Consumer Guide opted to test a Cadillac Fleetwood powered by the Buick-built 252 V6.
Bet they were sorry that they did: the 6-pot Fleetwood was painfully slow, with a zero-to-sixty time approaching 23 seconds. This was a Cadillac?!?! Not that the Oldsmobile-made (and problem plagued) 350 V8 Diesel would have accelerated any better…. Guess you had to get a V8-6-4 if you wanted to be sure your Cadillac could merge onto a freeway. Or you could go shopping for a Buick Electra or Olds Ninety-Eight.
Though the potent gas-powered V8s like the 403 and 350 were gone from GM’s C-Body roster at Buick and Olds by 1981, at least there was still a decent V8 on offer. The Olds-built 307 V8 was no powerhouse, but it was smooth running (no cylinder-deactivation hiccups) and bullet-proof (no early visits to dealers with brand new cars suffering poorly running engines). Plus, Oldsmobile and Buick offered something on their full-sized cars that Cadillac did not: a 4-speed automatic. Sad but true—the flagship division of General Motors stuck with the old 3-speed automatic for 1981 while its less expensive sister divisions got the newer, more efficient transmission.
Inside, if you wanted button-tufted loose cushion seats covered in polka-dot velour, you could get them standard on the Olds Ninety-Eight Regency, while you had to pony-up an additional $1,005 ($2,740 adjusted) for the d’Elegance package on the DeVille. Plus, at $10,761 ($29,343 adjusted) the starting price for a V8-powered Ninety-Eight Regency sedan was $3,086 ($8,415 adjusted) less than the starting price for a Sedan DeVille. So for value conscious buyers seeking traditional American luxury, GM’s own C-Bodies from Buick and Olds were a far better pick. The Cadillac simply cost too much for what was essentially the same car, but with a more complicated, less smooth, less reliable V8 and an older, less efficient automatic transmission.
It wasn’t just competitors inside GM that benefitted from Cadillac’s engine/transmission gaffes: cross-town rival Lincoln also found itself well positioned to woo away wreath-and-crest customers.
Earning a “Best Buy” designation from Consumer Guide, the Lincoln Town Car served-up traditional American luxury as expected, with no cylinder-deactivation gimmicks, dismal diesels or undersized V6 engines to be had. Every bit as opulent as the Cadillac, and similarly priced, the Lincoln proved to be a better value because of its no-fuss, tried-and-true 302 V8 and 4-speed automatic. Little wonder that Town Car sales soon began to surge as word got around about Cadillac’s engine issues—and Lincoln’s lack thereof.
So there you had it: for value-seeking luxury shoppers who wanted traditional American size and opulence, the Cadillac cost too much for what it offered. Cadillac wasn’t remotely the “best” anymore—it was actually behind rival offerings, making that historic price premium mighty hard to justify.
But what about the “money is no object” crowd? People wanting to show off with rolling expressions of their bank accounts were increasingly turning to imported brands. Cars from Mercedes-Benz and BMW were selling like hotcakes to the moneyed set, with sales rising smartly year-over-year even during the 2nd Oil Shock and subsequent recession. In fact, the tough times actually helped the imports significantly, since the wealthy wanted to look “frugal” and “loaded” at the same time. These imports sold for Cadillac prices (or in many cases far more), yet they were small, functional and well crafted versus being big and overwrought. As such, they defined the new tastes of the times, where “intelligence” (it’s so efficient and high quality) plus “stealth wealth” (that little car cost how much?!?!?) became the calling cards of the style-setters. For these buyers, a supersized Cadillac stuffed with chintzy materials was too ponderous, too tacky…. And too cheap.
So surely Cadillac, flagship of mighty GM, was going to develop a great answer for this new breed of status seekers, right? After all, the 1975 Seville had been an acceptable half-step in that direction and was very well received, so no doubt the successor to the 1st generation could move even more toward international excellence, to keep pace with the evolving tastes of super-premium buyers. Or not.
CC has chronicled the 2nd Generation Seville as one of General Motors Deadly Sins, but I think its almost impossible to overstate how deadly it really was for Cadillac. At a time when there was absolutely no question that rational, functional, efficient and aerodynamic cars were fast becoming the hottest trend in the automotive market, Cadillac went back to the 1960s instead.
That’s right, there’s the dated bustle-back from another time and another mindset. So it was quite a surprise to see that design language emerge in 1980 for the 2nd Generation Seville. It was the polar opposite of what the trendiest style-setters were seeking. And things only got worse for 1981, because the dastardly V8-6-4 or the weakling 252 V6 became the alternate engine choices to the standard 350 V8 Diesel. Ugh!
Since the Seville Consumer Guide tested for 1981 was brand new and in optimal tune, they found that the cylinder-deactivation was barely noticeable (just give it a few more weeks….). But the fuel efficiency wasn’t there, and the overall packaging and style of the car simply seemed out-of-touch with the needs of the 1980s. Because it was.
However, the bad news from Cadillac during 1981 did not end there. It actually got far, far worse.
Arriving in spring 1981, though technically listed as a 1982 model year product, the Cimarron represented another Deadly Sin on Cadillac’s list. Though it seems utterly unfathomable, GM somehow thought that they could attract upscale import intenders by merely rebadging a lowly Chevrolet Cavalier as a Cadillac Cimarron! Same crummy, weak OHV 4-cylinder, same generic Chevrolet styling inside and out. But the “Cadillac” had leather seats!!! And Cadillac badges!!! And standard air conditioning!!! Why BMW 320i intenders didn’t drop everything and run to their nearest Caddy dealer is beyond me….
See why I picked 1981 as the turning point when Cadillac went down the road to ruin?
Just as Cadillac’s grasp on its leadership position as the “must have” traditional luxury car was collapsing, another brand was emerging as the new King at the top of the American automotive food chain in 1981.
The pragmatic testers at Consumer Guide didn’t typically gush about cars, but there was one that truly earned their admiration: the all-new Mercedes-Benz 380SEL flagship sedan that arrived in America for 1981. Here was an impeccably engineered, thoroughly modern car that was simultaneously imposing—with the formal radiator grille swept back for aero-efficiency, stand-up hood ornament and sleek flowing lines—and efficient, with ample interior roominess and comfort wrapped inside a body that was a full foot shorter than Cadillac’s despite having the same 121-inch wheelbase. This car was the epitome of modern luxury and style, circa 1981.
And it was priced accordingly, carrying the shocking (for the time) price-tag of $44,298 ($127,066 adjusted). High prices ensured rarity and helped attract the attention of envious admirers, which of course was the whole point. True luxury was (and is) about exclusivity, not ubiquity. Mercedes understood that there was a growing group of American buyers who had money to burn for luxury goods, and they cleverly positioned and priced their brand at the top of the heap. Right in territory that Cadillac had dominated decades before.
Go back to 1961, and the Cadillac Fleetwood was one of the most expensive mass produced cars offered in the U.S. market. It was rare and coveted, and priced higher than any Mercedes sedan available in the U.S. at the time. Even the baseline Series 62 was pretty pricey, far higher than the entry-level Benz. But a decade later, that had changed dramatically. The Fleetwood was actually cheaper than its 1961 counterpart, while the Mercedes S-Class was far more expensive—and this was before the dramatic escalation in the value of the Deutschmark to the Dollar. And by 1981, the Fleetwood had a lower base price than the entry-level, bare bones Mercedes 240D. Sure the Mercedes prices were off the chart, but that didn’t stop sales. And it is interesting to note that even today, quite a few loaded super-premium topline sedans and SUVs sell in that $120,000 to $130,000 price band. Mercedes had found the ceiling for U.S. luxury vehicle pricing, and they mined it for all it was worth.
This isn’t to say that Cadillac needed to move aggressively upmarket to match the top Mercedes prices. But imagine what the flagship Cadillac could have been if it were priced at around $30,000 ($81,800 adjusted), featuring cutting edge powertrains that actually worked and higher quality interior materials.
There was another, shorter road test in the April 1981 issue of Car and Driver, which really proved to be a stark contrast to the Cadillac DeVille in that same issue. The 300SD was the Turbodiesel version of the S-Class, and it offered yet another example of Mercedes-Benz engineering excellence. OK, so the test car had issues, as David E. Davis was flummoxed—and disappointed—about a locking fuel-filler door that did not work properly (methinks that Davis’s intrepid female driving companion must have been none other than Jean Lindamood, as she would have undoubtedly had the gumption to solve the problem). As was typical for a Mercedes S-Class, the car wasn’t cheap, listing for $34,185 ($93,216 adjusted). But the 300SD was comfortable, loaded with features and drove brilliantly for a Diesel. With the turbocharger added to the 3.0 liter 5-cylinder Diesel, the zero-to-sixty time was 12.1 seconds—very nearly as quick as the gas-powered V8-6-4 in the DeVille. However, C&D’s observed mileage was vastly different: the Benz achieved 23 MPG compared to the 11 MPG delivered by the Cadillac.
Cadillac simply couldn’t compete. Its V8 performance was basically matched by the Mercedes Turbodiesel. The non-turbocharged Diesel offered by Cadillac as a $325 option ($886 adjusted) was significantly slower. Putting a turbocharger on GM’s V8 Diesel would have blown an already weak engine to bits, so that wasn’t an option either. Of course, unlike the Mercedes powertrains, none of the 1981 Cadillac engines would prove to be good enough for the long haul. Well into the 1990s, you’d be likely to see plenty of 1981 Mercedes-Benz models merrily puffing along, boasting high odometer readings and still robust bodies, while plenty of 1981 Cadillacs (with the V8-6-4, V6 or Diesel V8) would be awaiting appointments with the crusher at a junkyard.
The reality of Cadillac’s dire situation in the early 1980s wasn’t just chronicled for me on the pages of magazines. I actually had a front row seat to the decline and fall of Cadillac loyalty via the family of one of my high school friends. My buddy George (great name!) had lived the Cadillac life as a kid. His parents were dream customers for GM, as they were a “His-n-Hers” Cadillac buyers, keeping the cars for just 2 years and having one from each model year (either “His” or “Hers” as they alternated) so that there was always a new Cadillac in the garage every year.
But one of the unfortunate truisms in life is that oftentimes good things must come to an end, and that was true for both Cadillac and George’s parents’ marriage. Around 1982, George’s parents went through a very messy and nasty divorce. The new Cadillac gravy train stopped for “Her,” so she kept the one she’d had when they split—a 1981 Fleetwood Brougham, finished in Sierra Gold, and powered by the notorious V8-6-4—longer than her usual 2-year trading cycle. As was typical for cars with the V8-6-4, her ’81 Fleetwood turned out to be a stalling, stumbling mess. I remember George’s mother frequently seething: “he left me with a faulty Cadillac that doesn’t even run right.”
To add insult to injury, she loathed her ’81 Cadillac so much that she treated it terribly. To wit, the Fleetwood, though still very new, had a huge welt on the rear deck-lid where George’s mom had backed into something, but never bothered to get it fixed—emblematic of the fact that the Cadillac no longer earned her admiration and pride. Once the dust from the divorce had settled and George’s mom was moving on with her life, the wretched ’81 Fleetwood was ditched for a comfy, manageable and reliable Toyota Cressida.
As for “His” Cadillac, George’s father’s last was a 1982 Sedan DeVille with the dismal HT4100 V8, a woefully underpowered and unreliable slug of a car. That Cadillac didn’t even make it to the 2-year trade-in mark—it was gone in less than a year, replaced by—drumroll please—a brand new Mercedes-Benz 300SD.
It’s proof of an age-old truism in the high-end luxury car market: affluent buyers seek out symbols of prestige, quality, exclusivity and fashionable style, happily paying the prices necessary to get “the best,” with indulgence and extravagance being crucial. Cadillac had understood this desire and owned this dominion in the U.S. for decades, but once they lost sight of what this market really wanted, the brand’s fall was swift and severe. Mercedes grasped the concept of “excess” as desired by American luxury customers—and redefined it as excessive engineering for an excessive price. Bulls eye! Plus, the engineering excellence and rigorous quality standards produced great cars, even if they weren’t cush-mobiles in the classic American sense.
So where do things stand now, some thirty-plus years after the fall of the House of Cad? Despite GM pouring billions upon billions of dollars into “recreating” Cadillac, with repeated hollow promises that “this will be the new Cadillac that turns things around,” the brand is no closer to the pinnacle of the luxury market than it was during the collapse in the 1980s. While brands like Mercedes, BMW, Tesla, Land Rover, Porsche and Lexus are now synonymous with “the best” in the luxury market, Cadillac’s mission remains muddled. Is it the maker of wannabe BMW sedans? Wannabe Lexus soft-roaders? Or madly over-priced Chevrolet Tahoe/Suburbans? None of these options are the products of a market leader….
Last week GM announced that Cadillac boss Johan (Audi über alles) de Nysschen was shown the door, after his SoHo hipsters, forgettable nomenclature and behind-the-times product and technology strategy failed to deliver on the umpteenth attempt at a brand turnaround. GM’s pick for his replacement to lead Cadillac? Steve Carlisle, a GM lifer who started with the corporation in 1982, right when V8-6-4s were stumbling, the HT4100 landed with a thud and the Cimarron became the butt of jokes. Carlisle clearly knows how to navigate inside General Motors—we’ll see if he knows what it takes to navigate the treacherous territory of true global luxury brands.
As much as I’d like to see Cadillac return to greatness, I’m not holding my breath….
Wow. Thanks for the read GN! You actually make a great case for yourself and I actually agree with you on a lot of points.
I still think 1986 is the absolute low point, but that’s more emblematic of a low point for GM as a whole in my eyes. But, with your points about 1981, it certainly does seem like that planted the seed that finally killed the golden goose.
As much of a Cadillac fan as I am, I look at the brand’s eventual decline as a sad case. If I had to describe their attempts at a comeback, it would be “one step forward, two steps back: The company”. Even the cars I like from that period were heavily flawed experiments that don’t hold up to close scrutiny.
The Allante: Hey it’s a nicely styled roadster that’s got some curb appeal. (It’s also based on dated architecture underneath, is way too expensive, and saddled with a crap engine.)
Cadillac Seville: A modern looking Cadillac that has elements of sports sedans and a powerful engine. (An engine notorious for failing out of warranty and a sports sedan that’s front wheel drive.)
Cadillac XLR: Allante part 2.
Cadillac Fleetwood: It’s the final traditional Cadillac. (That’s rather awkwardly styled and outdated compared to the similar Town Car.)
Cadillac DTS: I like it at least (It was outdated and long in the tooth and built on a platform from 2000) At least it looked better than 2000-2005 Deville (That’s not saying much though.)
I guess you could argue Cadillac has had some success in the Escalade and the V-Sport series. But even then, the V-Sport sedans are always in the shadow of BMW’s M-Cars and there are better options than the Escalade on the Full-Size SUV market (And I’ve always liked the Navigator better anyways.)
Like you, I want Cadillac to succeed. If for no other reason than I am a fan, and I will say, even though I don’t care for the newer models as much as the older ones, there are some products I do like. But will they get back to their once former glory? Only time will tell, I mean if Lincoln is generating the buzz it is after a couple of short years of being on death watch, anything is possible. I have seen pictures of the upcoming V-Sport CT6 and even though I don’t fully grasp the logic behind it, it is rather good looking in a thuggish sort of way, and the Escala concept they showed is a genuinely beautiful car. Guess I’ll just wait it out, see what happens.
Although, for all the criticisms of these cars, the general design language of these 80s Sedan Devilles and Fleetwoods is nothing if not “Iconic” I suppose. They are instantly recognizable as Cadillacs, which I guess for any brand is a good thing, I suppose.
Anyways, to end on a positive note. A picture of the aforementioned V-Sport CT6.
As for Cadillac’s failed experiments, let’s not forget the ELR ! (a.k.a. the $75,995 Chevy Bolt). In its first two years they sold all of 2,340 of them; despite discounting the price by $10k in its last year, sales plunged to 534 units. The number of people who responded to the ELR by noting “for that kind of money you could buy a Tesla” spoke volumes about the relative cachet these two brands have today.
It wasn’t just cachet that Tesla offered with the similarly-priced Model S. It also had spine-tingling acceleration, stellar steering response and ride/handling balance courtesy of the low center of gravity, an adult-size 3-person back seat with doors to get there, available 2-kid third-row seating, a huge touchscreen, a front trunk, a hatchback, and rear drive or available (now standard) AWD. The ELR had none of those things. And wealthy buyers seeking green cred preferred Tesla’s 300 mile range all-electric drivetrain to Cadillac’s plug-in hybrid setup that gave you 37 miles of EV-only driving before the 1.4L four-cylinder ICE kicks in. Another example (and a recent one) of Cadillac completely missing the mark.
I agree the ELR was pure, unadulterated hubris. I get using FWD platforms for crossovers (I said I get it, not I like it) because of the profit margins and the generally less demanding buyers. I get why the XTS came to be, being introduced after development on a real RWD flagship was ceased due to bankruptcy. But the ELR? That should have been half the price it was. It should have been Model 3 pricing, not Model S. The two aren’t even comparable. I’m a Cadillac fan and I’ll take a Model S every time for the very reasons you said.
The ELR was pretty but utterly misguided and that came almost entirely down to its ridiculous pricing. Good riddance.
Using this smarmy @$$ in the ads didn’t help any IMHO.
Roger628,
I hated the whole vibe of those ads. In Chicagoland there are commercials for Men’s Warehouse, a suit store, with a guy in a trendy skinny suit, whose snarkiness makes me want to slap the smugness off his little sneering face. And I don’t usually get like that!
in my post above I of course meant the Chevy VOLT…. so easy to confuse those two.
In light of JdN being thrown to the curb (hooray!), we have to wonder if the brand will ever recover.
GM believes in badge engineering, and it just does not work on this brand. Your points above underscore this in spades, with the exception of the Escalade. A Yukon with leather seats and CUE that sells in higher volume and at a significant premium is marketing genius, so find the person who was responsible and make them President of Cadillac. Think of the immediate product lineup additions:The Buick Encore, Envision, and Enclave can all get slightly changed and turned into their Cadillac equivalent for immediate sale. Watch that go over! They keep thinking a rewarmed platform, or a platform that copies a five year old BMW’s dynamics, is what the buying public wants. Obviously, it is not the case.
No, Cadillac has been a dead company walking for a long time. The 1981 date is as good a point as any for time of death, but until they decide to either take it off life support or give the company a heart transplant, it will never change.
Excellent article, with acute observations on status.
I have to wonder why ANYONE thought 4-6-8 was a usable idea. Aside from the guaranteed trouble with the mechanism itself, it runs contrary to how real people drive. We set the gas pedal to achieve our desired speed. When the speed drops for any reason, our natural response is to push harder. We don’t care if the drop happens because of a headwind or a hill or a switch in engine mode. We just push harder to regain our speed. Cruise control does the same. Result: LESS fuel economy, not MORE.
The best conclusion is that 4-6-8 was purely meant to cheat the EPA test, like VW’s diesel software trickery.
Good points. One rationale may be that Cadillac at times seemed to be the “bleeding edge technology” division, with features added for wow value even if they didn’t quite work out: night vision, early trip computers, etc. The fact that Cadillac stuck with the 3-speed automatic was news to me, though, and another very odd corporate decision.
That “3-speed auto” (likely the THM350) was probably the most reliable part of the car. Those early metric 4-speed autos that GM built could barely handle the torque of the Olds 307 let alone a Cadillac big block V8.
The cylinder deactivation likely came out of GMs edict that “none of their cars would ever pay a gas guzzler tax” and this was one of the wonky work arounds prior to the High Tech “HT” 4100 being given the green light (forget the trouble prone nature of that engine – it only made a mighty 135 hp, 5 less than the Olds 307 V8.)
Meanwhile Iaccoca revived the Diplomat and 5th Ave, his customers paid the gas guzzler penalty and he laughed all the way to the bank. Ford stumbled with the terrible Variable Venturi Carburetor but continued to offer the 351 in towing packages for the first 1/2 of the 80s, debuted fuel injection in 1985 and never looked back.
If you were a member of “the Greatest Generation” or even their parents in the 80s and had a strong buy American streak, Lincoln or Chrysler would make you feel smarter than the guy down the street with that trouble prone Caddy.
True enough. It’s particularly sad that GM, who had arguably the best automatic transmissions at one time, couldn’t make one to handle their flagship brand’s own engine. Sort of the whole GM decline in microcosm, I suppose.
GM couldn’t – or wouldn’t? I’d like to think the know-how was still there, even if it got stifled by bureaucracy and never reached production.
These Caddy 368’s were backed by a TH400, not a TH350.
Close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades. 😉
Either one of those was worlds better than the TH200 four speed auto – which was my point. Just ask the owner of say a circa 1981 Oldsmobile 98.
The “standard of the world” has always been an empty promise.
If Cadillac had truly believed they´d deliver the “standard of the world” they´d have created cars which would have been sold all over the world.
In fact one of their (major) problems was (is), that Cadillac never got off the ground anywhere else but in the US.
Not in Europe, not in Asia or Russia.
They always had a rather limited (and in part fickle) “fan base”.
They’ve been doing well in China lately
Prior to World War II, Cadillac and Packard were the most desired luxury cars around the globe (including Europe). Which wasn’t surprising, as they were the two best cars in the world at that time.
After World War II, Cadillacs were offering effective HVAC systems, power windows and seats, and powerful, reliable engines when the Europeans were congratulating themselves for figuring out how to make a heater that worked. But success bred complacency and arrogance.
Although Packard and Cadillac both built world-class cars, your statement as to those two being “the most desired luxury cars around the globe” and “the two best cars in the world at the time” are quite subjective, and many automotive historians of that era would undoubtedly debate that endlessly with you.
There are too many parameters to cars to apply such absolutes to them. And needless to say, there were a raft of other luxury automobiles, including from the US (think Duesenberg) that competed successfully for the titles you bestowed on Cadillac and Packard, never mind a host of brilliant European cars. Although both Cadillac and Packard were generally respected in Europe in the pre-war era, they were not that common at all there. The Europeans had plenty of luxury cars that were every bit as good or better. Hispano-Suiza, RR, Bugatti, Mercedes, etc…
Cadillac and Packard offered well-rounded luxury cars – very well-built, comfortable for both the driver and passengers, good performing, reliable (for that era) and fairly easy to maintain. They were, in some respects, the Lexus of their day.
Cadillac and Packard both enjoyed a healthy export business in the pre-war years. This was particularly true in countries without a native auto industry. American cars in general were desired prior to World War II, as this article notes. Packard, in particular, was a popular luxury brand in foreign countries.
https://www.americanheritage.com/content/emperor%E2%80%99s-pierce-arrow
Many European countries protected their native auto industry by levying tariffs on American vehicles, particularly in retaliation for the U.S. enacting the notorious Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930.
I just take issue with the claim that Cadillac was never popular outside the U.S. That is not true. At one time, Cadillac (and Packard) enjoyed a healthy export business. They were sold all over the world, and quite successfully, too.
We can’t judge the Cadillac of the pre-World War II era (or early 1950s) by the Cadillac of the 1970s.
Agreed on all points.
It’s quite a problem. The ultra rich/politicians in Soviet, or Asian countries for decades kept buying Cadillac as a status symbol but the number is so minimum and it’s more symbolic.
The richest person in Taiwan a while ago had a Cadillac Brougham and he consistently used it until he passed away. Chiang Kai-Shek kept buying Cadillac for decades until he passed away. Also not to forget Bhumibol Adulyadej’s several golden Cadillacs. He passed away two years ago.
I’ve seen those royal Caddies! An official royal motorcade would have several police motorcycles, a few police cars, a dozen or so red BMWs for police, Court and government officials, a few black S-Class saloons or MPVs for the special guests, entourage and bodyguards, then a couple of pale yellow royal limos, such as this one (but I also saw a Phantom VI a few years back). And another dozen red BMWs, police vehicles and such afterwards, of course. It’s quite a show.
The late king had a passion for cars. Delahayes, Salmsons, Rolls-Royces, Ferraris and M-Bs (and probably a Packard or a Lincoln or two) are known to be in the Grand Palace.
The President of Iceland is still driven in a 1942 Packard for ceremonial occasions.
I’d argue that “empty promise.”. We had a ’56 220S, a ’60 220S, a ’64 220SE, a ’67 250SE, and a ’70 280SE. All of them shared garage space with large luxurious American cars. First hand experience- first Mercedes with Air Conditioning that wouldn’t overheat in LA rush hour traffic was the ’70. First Mercedes with Automatic and Power Steering was the ’64. Shared garage space with a Chrysler New Yorker that could literally run circles around it. No, Mercedes didn’t actually start delivering on the promise until the ’73 when the 450SE hit these shores. At roughly double the price of a Cadillac. As luck would have it, Cadillac was well into their downward spiral by then.
True, Cadillacs never sold well in the 60’s in Europe, Asia, or Russia. The Germans were the only ones with any money, and Germans buy German luxury cars… period. (I have German parents, I can say this honestly). The Russians thought a Zil was all that and more, and in Asia Mao rode around in Mercedes 600’s while everyone else rode a bicycle.
Lindamood/Jennings didn’t know – like others – what “Standard of the World” meant.
It never meant apogee or acme, it meant they had standardized parts – which was an advancement at the time:
Cadillac was the first American car to win the Royal Automobile Club of the United Kingdom’s Dewar Trophy by successfully demonstrating the interchangeability of its component parts during a reliability test in 1908; this spawned the firm’s slogan “Standard of the World”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac
That said, they were spot on w/ Cadillac’s half-baked tech – altho I like cloth interiors rather than the plastic-coated leather that prevails today.
I’ve read that the standard of the world also meant that the 1916 Cadillac was the first car with what we consider the standard configuration today: electric starter and three pedals configured gas, brake, clutch from right to left. The Austin 7 copied the Cadillac and BMW copied the Austin 7 and Nissan (I think) built copies of the Austin 7 and so the standard configuration spread around the world.
I don’t know when Bentley reconfigured their pedals so that the clutch was no longer between the gas and brake and I don’t know if there were any cars that shared the Model T configuration, which I understand to be quite confusing to a modern driver, with throttle on the steering wheel etc., but there were apparently multiple configurations of controls and the Cadillac version was the one that became the standard of the world.
Great read GN. I’ve got a V8-6-4-badged 81 in my archives waiting for its cc moment, and this piece really fills in the backstory. I’ll just cherry-pick from this in due time.
My inflation-adjusted 2 cents: Cadillac should have pursued the upper end of the kind of purchaser who bought the Chrysler 300 with something close to the Sixteen. Maybe they weren’t the Standard of the World anymore, but there was (and I dare say, still is) a place for brashness and excessive size (and cylindrage) at the top end of the market. Niche instead of mainstream, just like a lot of the other brands in this upper stratum.
I didn’t think then, and certainly don’t think now, that a V16 would catapult Cadillac’s image in the right direction. The future seems bleak for 12+ cylinder engines, and competitors have moved away from V12s in the last decade. A 16 cylinder engine could endanger Cadillac’s image in the same way 12mpg cars did in 1980.
I think the point of bringing up the Sixteen isn’t about the 16 cylinder engine, but the design itself being something Cadillac should have went with. I wasn’t a big fan of it myself when it made the auto show circuit, but I knew people who absolutely loved it, who weren’t particularly into any Cadillacs or the production models using the art & science design direction the Sixteen itself showcased.
I actually wonder how many 300c buyers had the Sixteen in their head when they bought them in its first few model years.
My constant complaint about Art & Science is that it makes cool-looking show cars, but on real-world vehicles, it either looks clumsy or (as with some recent Cadillacs) is hugely angle-dependent, where it looks good from a specific vantage point, but awful from others.
Meanwhile, the W123 300SD talked about here was basically the high-water mark for Mercedes-Benz reliability and durability. How is it that they’ve somehow managed to keep their reputation even though everything for them has gone downhill from there (including some truly execrable garbage in the early 2000s?)
Even in 1981, though, Mercedes-Benz had some problems. The early 380 engines had inadequate timing chains which were prone to breaking with very costly results. Mercedes never issued a recall but quietly went over to double-row chains after a couple of years.
Mercedes still “blended in”, but when you’re 1980s Cadillac and snarky journalists are already taking shots at superficial or subjective points like bordello interiors and soft ride, having back to back major engineering, driveability and performance faults turned what was an old stuffy brand into a complete and total disaster.
Conversely when Mercedes started getting bad(which really wasn’t near 80s Cadillac depths) the competition that had been nipping at their heels like Lexus were still taking tracing paper to their designs and carefully ensuring they’d meet or exceed what Mercedes promised. So they still were aspirational, even if someone chose a Japanese luxury brand for value and reliability instead, they weren’t ditching Mercedes as an act of rebellion from some old standard, like the younger generation did with Cadillac(even before these issues). Plus to some extent, the boomers that embraced the foreign marques en masse cling to them through thick and thin, just as much as the greatest generation did with Cadillacs and Lincolns. Never underestimate nostalgia.
Fantastic article from a great writer! You highlight the chain of many events that accurately lead to Cadillac’s downfall, and explain it in terms that I think most people here, regardless of their standpoint, can agree with. Definitely one of you best George and I really enjoyed this!
Thank you Brendan, much appreciated!
Very interesting article. It appears that the 1981 mindset was that big cars and V8 engines were doomed, and we would spend the rest of our lives driving econoboxes if we were lucky. If only the 1981’ers could see that 37 years later people would be driving 400-hp trucks and SUVs.
The price graph really shows how Mercedes over the years milked the “premium” aspect of its top cars for all it was worth. But we should remember that the 1961-1962 300SE, though a very worthy car, was not the high-end luxury conveyance that the big Mercedes would evolve into with the 1965 S-class and especially with the 1972 W116.
But we should remember that the 1961-1962 300SE, though a very worthy car, was not the high-end luxury conveyance that the big Mercedes would evolve into with the 1965 S-class and especially with the 1972 W116.
Of course it was. In fact it was a very direct evolution, as the 1965 W108 shared a huge amount of under-skin technology with the W111/112, including the same 108″ wheelbase for the swb cars. The W112 300SE/SEL was a direct predecessor to the W108 300SE/SEL, right down to its air suspension and engine. And it was very rare and very expensive, hardly ever seen; much rarer than the 300 class W108 the succeeded it.
Of course the new W116 in 1972 was largely all-new, but its suspension had been previewed on the W114/115.
Cadillacs in the early 1960s weren’t that luxurious either, when you consider that the greatest luxury feature in my opinion – air conditioning – wasn’t all that common even in Cadillacs at the time.
There were stories posted here about history of auto air conditioning. Seemed like at first, dealer installed aftermarket systems were a big market and car makers let them have it.
You’re looking at it from 2018 perspective where a base Hyundai Elantra has more features than a 61 Cadillac or Mercedes, but when you compare what you got, and the quality of what you got, standard in one compared to a standard Chevrolet, the premium made itself known.
Plus one thing often overlooked is that old cars often had superior ventilation to what we’re now accustomed to with standard A/C. A/C was obviously a necessary option if you just need refrigerated air to keep you at a steady 65 degrees, but proper cross ventilated airflow can be more than adequate on all but the hottest days, and there are just as many people who are comfortable at 70-80, and chilly where some others set their thermostats, especially in the days before obesity was so rampant. Modern cars without A/C are miserable because there’s no attempt at all to achieve cross ventilation, not without getting your eardrums perforated with the windows down anyway.
The vent windows in particular were very helpful in keeping passengers comfortable and without some of the racket that came with lowering the side windows. But modern flow through ventilation – that I first experienced in our 1965 Thunderbird coupe – was pretty great compared to opening those below dash vents (the compartments of which would fill up with leaves in the fall that would hit you in the face in spring). And for me today’s automatic temperature control systems are among the greatest improvements for driving pleasure – I never turn the system off in my Infiniti.
As one who has spent time around Cadillacs of the early 60s and Cadillacs of the 70s and 80s, I beg to differ with you. Yes, old Cadillacs had more power equipment than typically found in a Chevy or an Oldsmobile, but that was icing, not cake. The cake was that the car felt special. It is hard to describe, but you could put on a blindfold and tell that you were positively not in a Chevrolet, even a really nice one.
You could feel it in the action of the door handle, the feel of the way the door closed. The action of the shift lever, the sound of the starter and the sensation that every piece you touched was something of high quality.
By the 70s that special feeling of quality was pretty well gone and there was nothing left but icing to make a buyer feel good about buying a Cadillac. But Mercedes? It was all over those cars in the 70s and 80s. By then Cadillacs made the owner feel like he spent a lot of money yet had to apologize for the quality of the pieces. In a Mercedes or BMW the owner felt like a genius for choosing something of quality (never mind that it cost way too much).
Icing versus cake – what a great analogy.
Something I was trying to articulate. 🙂
Look at Cadillac’s best sellers today.
Escalade
XT5
XTS (if you are picking a sedan)
Purchasing NEW could you really look a friend in the eye and tell them that they HAD to have a Escalade over a Yukon Denali? How about an XT5 over a Terrain Denali (or even SLT)? XTS over Lacrosse or Impala?
There’s no contest. Your friend will pay more for the same car with different icing. (With the Lacrosse they’ll actually get a newer platform than the XTS or Impala.)
Icing v Cake indeed…
Great write-up GN!
I really struggle with this on an almost existential basis. GM betrayed me, or us for that matter.
Their downfall began well before this, when GM switched to cheaper, recycled metal in the mid 70s that resulted in our then 2 year old de Ville (‘75) developing gigantic bubbles of rust in all the usual places and a premature trade-in on a ‘78 (with the D’elegance interior!!!) Forget about the cheap dashboards and door panels, they were part of the deal in the 70s – the quality of these was already in serious decline and people did take notice.
As was clear in the C/D article, either you got it or you didn’t when it came to these BarcaLounger Caddys. Rich Ceppos got it, having grown up with the big cars, whereas DED and others did not. Look-when you are a kid and you think your dad is a Very Important Person, and he buys Caddy after Caddy, the cars tend to make a lot of sense (especially the better-engined ones). But when you look at GMs abject failure to change with the market, combined with their sheer arrogance, one has to really hate them for what they did. After all, I never bought a new GM product in my lifetime, and my dad hasn’t bought one in 3 decades. That’s because they haven’t built anything that has prompted either of us into a Caddy showroom over any other brand. After all, Cadillacs are now known for being nothing more than half-assed affairs in one way or another, to my chagrin. I don’t really care that they have well sorted suspensions at this point, especially when they use substandard materials in the interior and have really awful, bland styling with crying tears (sad clown) LED headlights.
Screw you Cadillac/GM, I love you.
I remember those Cadillacs rusting like crazy. Big dinner plate sized spots of rust down the sides of the car. I think Cadillac went downhill after 1966. It took 15 years of building evermore cheapened luxury cars for them to even try to fool the public with the 1981.
“After all, Cadillacs are now known for being nothing more than half-assed affairs in one way or another…”
How hard it must be to change public perception when this is the reputation they’ve had for decades, for longer than the lifetime of some of their potential customers.
Though my Father never bought a Cadillac, his middle brother, after owning more modest cars (his previous car was a 1976 Dodge Aspen Wagon) bought a DeVille in …you guessed it, 1981. He was pretty proud of it, but didn’t keep it too long (he kept his cars longer than my Father usually did) and bought a string of Cadillacs through the 80’s and 90’s before switching over to Lincoln in the early 2000’s…he had a few of those then finally was convinced by his son in Law to buy a 2010 Lexus, which proved to be his only foreign car (and as it turned out his last car…..all 3 brothers, passed away in 2016, starting with the oldest, my Father, the youngest, then the middle). I think he was disappointed with Cadillac in the end (which is why he went to Lincoln) and finally followed lots of former American car buyers over to Lexus.
My Dad was a bit different, starting in the mid-60’s when my parents first bought a second car, it was a used Beetle, like a lot of people bought, and up to 1980 when he bought a Dodge Omni, all of the second cars were foreign. The “other” car was usually a Station Wagon, usually a Ford (but the last one was a Chevy…as was my Father’s last car)…well equipped, starting in 1973 he went a bit down market getting a County Sedan, but it had lots of options (trailer towing package, power locks, air conditioning, AM/FM Stereo) which he ordered in his subsequent “other” cars…nothing really “Luxurious” but nice and well equipped…nowdays those things are pretty much standard anyhow (try to find a car without them) but he did stick with cloth seats starting in the ’80’s…vinyl before that, never owned a car with leather seats (nor have I for that matter….I much prefer cloth).
The youngest brother…usually a used car, always American…always bought from the same dealership that he trusted (and ended up selling a bunch of cars to him, his wife, and his 3 sons)…I remember a Chevy wagon, a Dodge Aspen, Buick Regal, Dodge Intrepid, Dodge Caravan, and a Chrysler Pacifica….I think he was driving a Chrysler 200 when he passed (took over his son’s car, who died several years prior to him)
I typed up one long-ass comment and then it didn’t let me submit it. Let me try and remember what I said…
1981 was truly the nadir. A cynical “sports sedan”, an out-of-touch Seville, and an increasingly outmoded DeVille with abysmal engines. At least by 1986 they were trying to get with the times although they forgot style along the way and continued to clutch uncomfortably onto the past.
You don’t have to tell me twice that GM really sabotaged Cadillac in the 1980s but I take exception to your commentary on contemporary Cadillac. They have a long, uphill slog still to go to be on the same level in buyers’ minds as BMW and Mercedes, that I can agree with you on.
However, I believed de Nysschen’s work was taking the brand in the right direction. Everyone on GM fan sites pillories him for moving the brand’s HQ to NYC, but I thought it made sense to get out of that Grosse Pointe bubble. Project Pinnacle ruffled feathers but it’s important to remember that, along with brand status, luxury car buyers prefer luxury brands because of the dealer experience. I don’t know for sure why de Nysschen was fired but I am a little nervous about future products… Most of what he did is well along in development but GM could still cut corners. That being said, they’ve given the brand plenty of autonomy and plenty of money.
And even before de Nysschen, they had recognised what was needed to compete in the luxury car market. The first Art & Science cars brought unique platforms. The second CTS brought more refined style and greater emphasis on material quality. The current ATS/CTS were perhaps priced/positioned too ambitiously, coming close to BMW and Mercedes on price while being sized the same as the equivalent Germans. The problem was, BMW and Mercedes have tremendous status and desirability and have had so for the past few decades. Cadillac is the underdog and they have to try twice as hard. Probably why the CT6 and the upcoming CT sedans are switching back to the CTS 2’s strategy of offering more size for the same price.
Is Cadillac’s image really that muddied? I mean, look at Lexus: they have the same dichotomy between sport sedans (IS/GS) and plush crossovers. Infiniti is moving in the same direction, something it started with the QX60. (As an aside, neither have gotten anywhere near the market share of the Germans in Europe although Cadillac’s efforts there have been even worse.)
Let’s also keep in mind China is becoming the more important market for Cadillac and, well, every other brand. And you say Cadillac is no closer to the pinnacle than they were in 1981, but I disagree. Would any 1981 Cadillac be getting a positive review in a publication like Auto Motor und Sport or Autocar? Were any 1981 Cadillacs winning awards? Yes, Cadillac’s market share is lower than it was in 1981 but they no longer seem so tone deaf to where the luxury car market is and where it’s headed.
I know all too well as a GM fan the classic refrain, “Just wait, the next [car] will knock your socks off!”. But Cadillac actually seems to be making progress and can be mentioned in the same breath as the Germans, and while market share is stagnant they’re making progress on things like ATP. Of course, Tesla’s extremely cool and ultra-desirable Model S has opened up another battlefront and that’s going to complicate things, but at least Cadillac is seeing tremendous growth in China.
Perceptions don’t change overnight. That’s how Cadillac was able to sell so many rotten 1981 models, but that’s also why Cadillac is coming from behind now.
(Whew. I hope I got everything I wrote the first time…)
“But Cadillac actually seems to be making progress and can be mentioned in the same breath as the Germans”
That right there is Cadillac’s problem. The Germans didn’t overtake Cadillac by building a better Cadillac than Cadillac did. They did their own thing, kept their standards high and their prices higher and came to own the high-end market. Cadillac is now acting like a follower. Is there really no other way to build an exclusive car than to do a copy of what the German manufacturers are doing? Cadillac is not only failing to do its own thing, I’m not sure it even knows what “its own thing” is anymore.
Frankly Chrysler (in the 300 series) has been building better Cadillacs than Cadillac has.
I agree with this. When we bought our A7 we looked at a CTS, both the normal 3.6AWD and the V-Sport. (Dad likes RWD, and we had heard good things about them.). At the end of the day, they weren’t bad, but they weren’t great. Also CUE was infuriating (we even preferred the system in the Lexus GS) and that little motorized storage bin and the touch controls drove my dad mad in about 5 minutes. Add on the not really competitive price, the total lack of interest we had in a Caddy (my father has terrible memories of them and GM in general.). So it was back to the Germans and Japanese for us. I think of all the dealers, we spent the least time at Cadillac. They just were not that interesting or worth the price.
I think Cadillac got confused who their core competition was. Mercedes and BMW kind of made it big in America on similar timelines and at similar prices, due to the exchange rate, but they are miles apart in execution. Mercedes’ form of luxury is far closer to that of Cadillac in its golden age, but GM clearly couldn’t comprehend that they declined in all those substantial areas where Mercedes excelled, and cynically pointed to a niche end of the new luxury market, which was track performance “we’re losing sales because BMWs are faster! Match them and we’ll be back on track!”
Other flaw is the very idea of “American luxury”. Probably seeing Mercedes as a passing fad Cadillac hedged their bets and simply doubled down on it through the 80s and 90s, not realizing that the luxury they were selling wasn’t “American luxury” but simply a style of luxury frozen in time between the late 60s and mid 70s. “American luxury”, as Cadillac sold up until the early 70s(or earlier depending on where you feel the decline began), didn’t actually differ much from “European luxury” in execution other than the sheer size of the things – think Rolls Royce, Bentley, the big Jaguars, in addition to true luxury Mercedes models of the era – all of these European luxury brands featured tropes we laugh at on American cars during the Brougham era, but that was what defined luxury in that time, vinyl clad roofs, wood (real or otherwise) and all, but unlike American brands in the 70s, they moved on to the next trend, and all those luxury brands remained with us without having to reinvent the core products, and still are favored by the wealthy. When Cadillac fully downsized by 86 they didn’t even have that uniquely American size anymore, just the dated styling they felt was “American”.
I must respectfully disagree with you Will 🙂
Cadillac’s mission is still clouded, and not helped by the fact that it seems they are constantly changing what directions the brand wants to go in. As JP said, Cadillac’s problem is that they it is trying to unsuccessfully copy the German brands while also unsuccessfully trying to pursue its idea of American luxury.
The primary issues in parts bin sharing with lesser GMs still plagues Cadillac, as well. Getting in one and flipping the directional signal stalk just doesn’t feel premium in the way that it does in say, a Mercedes-Benz or Land Rover. Furthermore, I truly think the “Art and Science” theme is dead, and has been for a long time. I honestly do not have an answer for an alternative, but Cadillac needs to take design in a new direction.
As Chrysler has somewhat successfully done with the 300, creating a product that is brash and unapologetic for its boldness is ultimately the key for an American car to succeed. I think creating products that look and feel more exclusive and project a more status seeking/power look are what could help Cadillac.
But for the time being, who knows.
Yes it is that muddied IMO. This debate will never end and Cadillac does have it’s fans, but….
Look at Cadillac vs. Audi vs. Infiniti. All began to rebuild their brands in the 90s and early 2000s. Cadillac arguably started with the Caddy that zigs in the late 90s and then again with the first Art and Science CTS in the 2000s. Audi began with the first A4 in 1996. Infiniti started over numerous times (oh and by the way, all 3 had the same leader).
Fast forward 15-20 years later and look at the brands today – Audi has a strong reputation and is well regarded. Their lease deals are less favorable than BMWs and are more along the lines of Mercedes, because they really don’t provide that much of a subsidy – that’s good for Audi. Furthermore, everybody knows now what an Audi is.
By contrast, Cadillac and Infiniti really don’t mean much of anything to anybody anymore. They are near luxury cars with a few luxury models mixed in. Infiniti offers awesome lease deals, and I’m assuming Cadillac may too (not to mention an additional $10k on the hood of every Slade to keep the faithful from defecting to Lincoln). Both are very unclear for what they stand for. What’s an Infiniti? What’s a Cadillac in 2018? Is it the Escalade BOF luxobarge based on a Chevy platform? Is it the CT6 anonymous conveyance on top of a well-sorted chassis? Does it compete with BMW? Audi? Ford? Mercedes? Jaguar? Lexus? Nobody knows because it doesn’t define itself. But if it does compete with those marques, it typically comes up short. So, for example, why a CT[x] when BMW for about the same price?
I also have to disagree with you. JdN did some things right, but not many. He did not, in almost five years, bring out truly new product, or even try to badge engineer the other CUVs in the GM parts bin, and tried to out-BMW the Germans when he should have tried something different.
Moving to New York? That only works if you divorce from GM, which they did not. He still answered to Grosse Point. They cut the checks, like a peturbed parent providing allowance to a petulant child enrolled in an Ivy League college, but majoring in Art History.
And how is Cadillac selling in Australia? Versus any of the other luxury brands, save Lincoln? Oh yes, they are not doing well there. Ditto Europe, and most of Asia. Buick seems to do better than Cadillac in China.
No, Cadillac fell from grace many, many years ago. They have the DNA to rebuild and rebrand, but they need to do so in their own image, not copying German or Asian or any other style. Big, brash, bold, and please use nicer interior parts.
Last time I checked, neither Cadillac nor Lincoln were even sold in Australia, and haven’t been since about WW2, except for the occasional special import from perhaps one dealer per state. We;’d be talking single digits per year, for the entire country. Generations have grown up without even having heard of Cadillacs, let alone seen them. Can any American even imagine that?
So, there’d be no bad reputation to overcome here (should they ever decide to export to Oz), but no reason for anyone to purchase one either. Effectively they’d be a brand new contender in an already crowded market, but known to be shackled to an organisation that went bankrupt, and killed Holden (I’m giving public perception here).
I wouldn’t like their chances…..
I don’t know if you recaptured everything that you had written the first time, but this response is awesome and I was looking forward to hearing your thoughts on Cadillac. You also touched on a lot of points I was grappling with when drafting this post, so here are some of my thoughts in response to yours.
1) Apparently de Nysschen was fired because Cadillac sales continued to be down in a strong market. While he had admirably worked to reduce discounts and fleet sales (an age-old Cadillac problem), GM bean counters were mad that the desired volumes weren’t there. I also think that the move to NYC was a huge mistake, as it isolated Cadillac from the hub of real decision making at GM, which for better or worse is Detroit. Also, I flatly reject the notion that you have to be in a “hip” place in order to understand how to sell luxury goods to a rich and style-conscious audience. Stuttgart is hardly Paris or the West Side of L.A., but nonetheless Mercedes and Porsche have had no problems understanding how to appeal to those buyers. So it’s not the place, it’s the mindset and receptiveness of the company to do what is necessary to succeed. I think the shocker for de Nysschen at GM is that they weren’t the VW Group (or even Renault/Nissan), where Piech (or Ghosn) expected—and supported—pushing boundaries. GM expects money and happily clips corners to get it, seemingly quite content with “good enough” rather than “great.” That mindset can sell Chevrolets and GMCs, but not true luxury products. I also think that de Nysschen’s “formula for success” was his own personal “schtick” and was not tailored to Cadillac—what he did at Audi he also did at Infiniti and then tried to apply at Cadillac, without seeming to understand Cadillac’s unique history and opportunity.
2) GM/Cadillac seems to recognize luxury market needs about 5 to 10 years after everyone else, which is why they remain behind. The peak of the sport sedan market in the U.S. was arguably the 1990s and early 00s. Cadillac’s sports sedan “answer” was first the embarrassingly misguided Catera for ’97, which inflicted even more brand damage. The CTS, with its unique platform, arrived as an ’03, which was very late to the sports sedan party, and going head-to-head with very successful, firmly entrenched competitors. And while the CTS was better than the Cimarron and Catera (LOW bar), it didn’t break any new territory and was controversially styled (I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I thought the first iteration of Art & Science styling on the “Baboon-butt” CTS was utterly hideous). On the SUV/CUV front, Lexus and Mercedes kicked off the “sophisticated luxury” party with the rationally-sized RX300 and ML in 1998, and the BMW X5 jumped in soon thereafter. When did Cadillac get the memo? Well the SRX didn’t arrive until MY04, and it was in no way a world beater. But Cadillac had the Escalade for ’98—that was an SUV!!! Uh no, that was nothing more than badge engineering on a dated Suburban in response to the surprising success of the Lincoln Navigator, and the “Cadillac Denali” was rushed to market to quiet the howls of Cadillac dealers, not because of smart, forward thinking product planning. However, I will agree that Cadillac ultimately catches up to the competition, just not the competition’s new offerings—like the improved 2nd generation CTS for ’08 was a cheaper alternative to the soon-to-be-replaced ’01 generation W203 C-Class and ’03 generation Mercedes W211 E-Class (doh!). Therein is my point—Cadillac continues to be late and come up short. It needs to be significantly better and more cutting-edge than all current competitive offerings, not just occasionally match (in some areas) what others have already been doing very well for years. Tesla’s disruption of the luxury market makes that even harder now than ever before—established luxury players are scrambling to catch Tesla, while Cadillac is scrambling to catch Infiniti….
3) I actually debated putting Lexus on the list of top luxury brands in the U.S. today, and I wholeheartedly agree that they also have muddled positioning. The true world-changing Lexus products primarily happened at the brand’s launch and in the 1990s–they have been adrift since, vacillating between sport and luxury, unsure of their real point-of-view. But where they have not faltered is in product quality and a strong dealer experience. Based on that, they are arguably still clinging to their reputation as a true luxury brand. And Lexus outsells Cadillac by a healthy margin (even Infiniti is outselling Cadillac now).
I simply don’t think Cadillac can get ahead of the curve until they are bold enough to carve out some unique, memorable territory and then dominate it. A slew of “getting better” and “almost there” products aimed scattershot at different competitors simply won’t cut it. Nor will a disparate array of products each with their own market and positioning, since each of these “submarkets” can be individually attacked, without the protective cover of an overall “prestigious brand” umbrella to offset the impact. A prime example: against their core image product—the Escalade—they are under attack by the new and very good Lincoln Navigator (finally all-new after 15 years!), which will undoubtedly cut a large swath through the “big bling barge” segment. So while Cadillac may be trying to run fast (in GM terms), luxury competitors continue to set the pace. Unless you are leading that, you are merely a follower, which cannot be the definition of luxury market greatness.
Outstanding article – and the 1961-81 inflation-adjusted price chart really drives the point home. What’s fascinating is that not only does this show how Cadillac slipped, but how much more willing consumers became to spend ungodly amounts of money on consumer goods – and how Mercedes (and others) responded to this trend quickly and on-target.
If the Fleetwood and big Benzes were the costliest mass-produced cars of 1961, it’s staggering to consider that the price ceiling doubled in 20 years.
Reading this indictment, it’s a wonder that Cadillac survived past the 1980s at all.
The chart is inflation-adjusted, but not currency-adjusted. The MB was made in Deutsche Marks. I believe the only thing in this incredibly good post that I’d take issue with would be that graph.
The text should perhaps explain that in 1970, you needed about DM3.5 for US$1. By 1980, you only needed DM1.5, which explains the graph better than some deliberate “let’s make ’em pay more for less” snob-appeal strategy on M-B’s part. They cost more and more in the U.S. by comparison to Cadillacs mostly because of monetary policy.
The funny part was that the U.S. policy was: “You’re gonna pay through the nose for imports,” and the public’s answer was: “You bet we are! Anything but a Diesel Cadillastrophe or some cheap dinosaur from Detroit.” Germany’s policy largely amounted to laughing all the way to the bank.
GN clearly pointed out the effect of the rise of the DM in the text below that chart: The Fleetwood was actually cheaper than its 1961 counterpart, while the Mercedes S-Class was far more expensive—and this was before the dramatic escalation in the value of the Deutschmark to the Dollar.
And the rise in the DM didn’t automatically translate to greater profits; and it affected some German companies very badly, as in VW. They took a horrible beating during the 80s.
And as the chart shows, MB prices were already rising strongly all during the 60s when the DM was still fixed to the dollar, 4:1.
I’d say the bigger deletion was the huge impact US personal income tax rates made: in the 50s, the top incremental tax rate was like 92%. Kennedy’s tax cut of 1963 brought that down into the 50%range, and it came down more later. And Reagan’s 1986 tax overhaul brought it all the way down to 28%. In the 50s; the income compression in the US was one of the highest ever seen anywhere in the world due to these high incremental rates. It explains why Cadillacs were the car of choice for most rich folks, because most of them really couldn’t afford a much more expensive car.
But that changed dramatically during the subsequent decades, so the big rise in Mercedes’ price reflected the huge increase in disposable income of the affluent, who were growing as a class in size as well. To them, a Cadillac was just a cheap, garish, overdone Chevy, sold by the millions, and that was certainly not a way to display one’s new-found purchasing power.
The change in tax rates are the single biggest factor in the rise of Mercedes.
With respect, Paul, I disagree. The fact that more wealth was available in the US explains why MB sold as well as they did, but it doen’t explain the cost / pricing difference, which really shoots up after the Bretton Woods System got Nixoned in 1971. The dramatic increase in MB prices in the ’70s was (fortunately for MB) came at a moment when the rich got richer in the US, so the currency-influenced price hike became the opposite of the deterrent it could have been for luxury brands, while hurting the lower-tier ones.
If MB and BMW could have lowered the ever-escalating price on their cars in the US, they would have. Because they would have sold even more cars that way. But you can’t control the value of money — nor how people spend it.
The other side of this issue is that despite pricing decline, Cadillac’s foreign sales were down to pitiful numbers by the late ’70s. The decline in quality matched the decline in price, and Cadillacs had been dismissed by the rest of the world as irrelevant gas-guzzling caricatures since the beginning of the decade.
For Cadillac, it was really a “heads you win, tails I lose” situation. Smaller / cheaper cars and engine woes depleted the marque’s image domestically, but brought in no new markets. Making Caddies more expensive would probably not have worked either, though the Seville was certainly a stab at that. They sold well enough initially, but only for the domestic audience. It’s hard to claim to be the standard of the world when you’re only produced and sold in one country — even if that country is huge and rich.
Disagree with what? I didn’t say or suggest MB/BMW raised their prices as much as they did because of the lower tax rates; of course it was because of the exchange rate; it just happened to fortuitously coincide with the dramatic reduction of tax rates and corresponding increase in disposable income. You disagree with that?
But it’s still significant that Mercedes prices were rising in the 60s quite a bit faster faster than inflation. That, and the growing demand for their cars suggests that their prices would most likely continued to have grown faster than inflation even without the impact of the currency exchange.
if one continues that trajectory of MB prices increases from ’61 to ’71 (before the drop of the dollar) in a straight line all the way to ’81, the price then ends up at about $105k instead of $125k. That’s still serious money, and well over twice the price of the Fleetwood Cadillac.
And the result is fundamentally the same: in relation to dropping tax rates and bulging wealth/disposable income, Cadillacs became dirt cheap and lost all of their prestige factor as a genuine luxury item, while the MB’s steady rise in price was increasingly affordable to the increasingly affluent, at $105k or $125k. Frankly, that $20k difference on a lwb S Class wouldn’t have made much difference in its sales.
Also, Mercedes and BMW were actually struggling to kepe up with demand during the 70s and 80s, because of booming US sales. Europeans had to often wait 4-6 months or more to buy one, because production was siphoned off to the US.
That really explains why MB’s prices were already on such a steep trajectory upwards before the currency devaluation in 1971: demand from the US was so strong. That’s economics 101: supply and demand were not in balance, and increasing production dramatically was something they were not eager to do, as they were not sure just how long the part was going to last. I think Mercedes was perpetually surprised at how strong US demand kept growing despite constant price increases during these decades.
Also, note that the D Mark’s value vs. the dollar dropped some 50% $1.7 to $3.4, from 1980 to 1985, or right back to where it was in 1971 or so. It’s not like Mercedes dropped their prices by 50% during those years, right?
Mercedes eventually priced themselves out of the market when Lexus came along, and their cost and pricing structure had to completely change within a few years. An E Class today is significantly cheaper than one was in 1986 or so. But that was market driven, and they had to reduce costs regardless of the currency.
The more I think about it, the less I think currency was really that much of a driver of Mercedes pricing. If Americans hadn’t been buying them, their prices wouldn’t have risen as strongly, and when Americans started buying Lexii, Mercedes dropped its prices.
The market is the biggest factor, as it is supposed to be. Sometimes economic theory does actually pan out as it’s supposed to.
“Cadillacs were flashy, expensive and exclusive—an overstated exclamation point on the American dream and a globally understood expression of wealth and power.”
Here´s where the misconception begins.
Globally? No – not really. In many places in Europe Cadillacs were considered to be the favorite choice for “pimps” and generally shady people who could afford to give a toss about what the neighbours had to say about them driving around in a flashy car such as a Cadillac.
Expression of Wealth and Power? Sure. Black, untaxed money.
Pre-World War II Cadillacs and Packards were very desired and respected around the world – including Europe. During the postwar years, Cadillacs were still very respected and desired. But then the rot set in during the mid-1960s.
In the 50s and 60s Cadillac was well regarded as the best in Europa, but European economy did not allow most people to buy it. They bought at simple Mercedes with a four cylinder engine instead.
An excellent history lesson, George! I knew a guy who bought one of these new. He grew up poor, went to night school to get a law degree while he worked as an insurance adjuster and became a successful attorney. He had always wanted a Cadillac and by 1981 was in a position to fulfill his dream.
The reality did not live up to the dream, however. I don’t recall him having any terrible complaints with the car but it was like the Peggy Lee song “Is That All There Is?” He kept the Caddy for 5 years and traded it on a Honda Accord. He drove a new Accord every few years for the rest of his life.
I knew others who had their last Cadillac during this era. They were older WWII vets who went to Lincolns.
I think that Cadillac got addicted to volume. After WWII they were good for 100-150K units a year, a time when they had no really serious competition. By the late 60s they were reliably over 200K annually and would eventually hit over 400K units. Units that were, as you point out, less expensive in constant dollars. In hindsight this was a huge mistake. They sold too many cars that were too similar to things in Oldsmobile and Buick showrooms. A new really high-end car in the 1970s and the willingness to pay a guzzler tax in the 80s might have changed the trajectory.
WOW!!! This is a well written on the point article. I was and am still a Cadillac kid. I still have hope for the brand. My mom owned a 67 Sedan Deville and a 76 Seville,both excellent cars. i myself owned a 72 Eldorado and a 73 Coupe Deville and a 92 Seville. after driving a 330xi for the past few years. i craved the smoothness of a Cadillac. don’t care for the Art and Science look, so i went to the past and found a one owner 88 Deville. i still have the bimmer i love the handling and speed mix. but the Caddy is more a cruiser than a bruiser. everything you wrote in this article is true(unfortunately)I really hope GM gets this brand back on top. I really would miss Cadillac if it were to go away.
But look at what’s happening now:
BMW CUV’s, that are far from the ‘Ultimate Driving Machine’, are selling well.
The entry level M-B CLK is chasing volume, at expense of diluting the brand.
They have a current reputation as aspirational. They can afford to do this.
A fair chunk of the rest of the world, and notably Europe never really rated Cadillac.
In the UK they were considered flash and vulgar, it was not the done thing to be flashy, even up to the 1980s, to be called a show off was quite an insult, so those of us who liked American cars were in the minority,
It was the look of the 1941, the 1953 Eldorado, 1949 60 special and fastback, and 1957 models that peaked my interest in Cadillac, then the other clean 60s US cars, especially Lincolns.
It wasn’t until I had the chance to drive a 78 Fleetwood Brougham for quite a few thousand miles all over the UK that I actually experienced them.
There was no extra quality of materials or construction over a British build Ford Granada and it didn’t ride anywhere near as well as a Jaguar XJ6; but when it lopped along on the motorway at 70- 80 or even flat out off the clock for miles it felt like the Queen Mary was really moving, I do like to waft along so quite liked it despite its shortcomings.
Also had the opportunity drive a 78 Chevy Caprice and for my money it was a much better car, still wafted but much tighter.
I was quite disappointed with Cadillac thinking it was all hype until I experienced the older ones, a 59 , a 63 convertible, a 49 fastback and a 66, they had all the glamour and style and seemed to be screwed together pretty well with some decent materials instead of the very cheap plastics of the 78. So there was some substance to them after all and I definitely would own an old example say a slightly dechromed 53 coupe in silver grey and alloy sabre wheels; if I lived in a country with big enough roads and cheap fuel
Perhaps 74 might have been when they lost the plot, they were still imposing but where was any real technical advance over a 60s car, still BOF, carb fed V8s and unsophisticated suspension, hardly standard of the world
GN- your write up is amazing. It was a great read and I totally enjoyed it.
One thing, though… the 1982 Cimarron did not come standard with power windows. They were an extra cost option. Hard to believe that they weren’t standard.
My best friends brother had landed a great job when the Caddy Cavilarron come out. He was in the market for a new car, as somehow decided he wanted a Caddy. Well he brought one of these pieces of crap and it had manual windows. I believe it didn’t even have power door locks….
I am glad you enjoyed the post, and thanks for the clarification on the Cimarron standard equipment NOT including power windows. All I can say is: “Oh. My. God.” That is even worse than I thought. How absolutely pathetic!
I’ve amended the text to remove “standard power windows” and add in the fact that the Cimarron had standard A/C. Now THAT makes it a Cadillac!!!
That isn’t all that surprising when you look at what Cadillac was targeting then; you weren’t getting power features standard in a 3 series of that era either.
I had no clue that the Cimarron came with standard manual windows. Just found this picture on the Internet and you can see them.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/04-1982-Cadillac-Cimarron-Down-On-The-Junkyard-Picture-Courtesy-of-Murilee-Martin-550×412.jpg
Even an 1990 Mercedes E-class did not offer power windows as standard…
Pop was a Cadillac man – he either had one or aspired to one. But when 1981 rolled around, I don’t know if he was being smart or frugal, he bought an Oldsmobile 98 Regency coupe. That car had the longest doors and rear quarters that I’ve ever seen!
Following the Olds was a brief, mid-life crisis fling with an ’84 Camaro SS, but after that he switched to FoMoCo, first with a Grand Marquis in ’86, followed by an ’88 Town Car.
For any other company, the V8-6-4 would be a stand-out failure. For Cadillac, it wasn’t. It wasn’t even a stand-out failure on that model. The 350 Olds diesel would go on to sour America’s opinions of diesel. And then there was the Cimarron. Car and Driver just casually mentions the forth-coming Cimarron, completely unaware of the disaster both it and the engine they’d just reviewed would be. This is like saying “Hey, this asbestos stuff is pretty good” and then following that statement with “Also, they’ve found a good place to dump chemical waste! Some place called ‘Love Canal!'”
Car and Driver‘s initial coverage of the Cimarron was surprisingly optimistic. That would be another good showcase for GN.
Excellent analysis and research. The amazing thing about outlining Cadillac’s downfall decades after it happened is that it didn’t take 20/20 hindsight to see what was unfolding. It’s not like, say, looking back and analyzing how and where Packard lost their way in their last two decades, things that may not have been obvious when they were happening. No, every car magazine, consumer publication, and most of all, owners knew something was wrong with Cadillac even in 1981 when they started to slip badly. Even Cadillac themselves knew some of their strategy was problematic, like going ahead with the V8-6-4 even as they knew it wouldn’t help fuel economy much and had been rejected by other manufacturers. Cadillac’s management just didn’t want to believe it was really happening.
The exchange rate between the dollar and mark that drove up prices of German cars in the US actually may have actually been a serendipitous good break for MB, BMW, and Audi. BMW for example originally sold the 2002 in the late ’60s as an affordable sports sedan, but the strong mark and weak dollar forced them to reframe it and the later 3 and 5 series as more of a luxury vehicle. Mercedes-Benz took advantage of its now much higher prices to position their cars as more prestigious and exclusive than American cars, and it worked – MB sales kept rising throughout the ’70s even as the prices skyrocketed.
The Cimarron indeed had a spring 1981 introduction even though it was model year 1982 so it fully counts as another 1981 demerit.
An excellent compilation and summation of everything I’ve been saying the past ten years, all in one article. Perfect.
Well, except maybe the part about a big lazy engine inherently getting better mileage than a smaller one having to work harder. Every downsized engine in the modern world would like to disagree with you on that! It is of course a basic fact of physics that small throttle openings create high vacuum, which increase pumping losses. A smaller engine with a larger throttle opening has much lower pumping losses, not to mention lower internal friction.
Obviously, these indisputable engineering principles don’t always manifest themselves perfectly, and the comparison of the 16mpg that C&D got with their 425 CID Caddy to the 11mpg they got with this one are not really valid, as we know nothing as to how they were driven.
Furthermore, Caddilac’s cylinder deactivation scheme was crude, and did not offer enough efficiency gain to be meaningful, although the technology has been used by others since then successfully, to eke out a small gain under certain conditions.
I understand the intuitive assumption that a small engine being worked harder will get worse mileage than a large one running lazily, but in principle, it doesn’t exist, except for the fact that these principles don’t play themselves out equally all the time. But nevertheless, over the long run, smaller engines have proven themselves to be more efficient, especially as variable valve timing and other techniques optimize the intrinsic advantages of reducing pumping losses at low-throttle operation.
Paul
Great points made. My ’79 CDV gets around 16 US, as stated in the article. and my “81 CDV does about 1=2 mpg better with the variable displacement disconnected. They are essentially the same car, with the ’81 being a bit smoother due to the F/I installation. I really don’t notice much difference in acceleration, and would estimate the ’81 is about a second slower to 60mph. I think the article was partially correct on the added complexity not being worthwhile, but every one in a while, C&D went into “assassination mode” on a car seemingly for shits and giggles. I don’t know how they managed 11mpg unless they left the parking brake on, and that kind of mileage was more common on the ’71-6 big Caddies.
There is some stumble and a little roughness when in 6cyl mode, and that is why I snipped the wire and run it as a 8cyl – the difference in mileage is not worth the added technology. Realistically, the computer used was created when Pong was popular, so it is hard to compare with today’s models. GM would have been far better served in trying to update the THM into an overdrive unit or lock-up torque converter to try and eke out the extra mileage on the highway. From what I recall, the overdrive trannies at the time couldn’t handle the torque pf the engine, and was left to be used on the various 5 litre engines of the day.
I’m glad you enjoyed the post! I was worried for a minute there, since I thought one of your top 5 dream cars was a Victorian Plum DeVille d’Elegance ;-).
Good point about fuel efficiency and engine displacement. Certainly in the modern context there is no question about the efficiency and effectiveness of smaller engines versus larger ones. But what about in the narrow and specific context of heavy, full-sized American cars in the early 1980s? I often wonder about the headlong rush to drop bigger engines (not the biggest—that made sense) in traditional American cars. Reading through period Consumer Guides and buff books would indicate that often the mileage wasn’t significantly better (perhaps 1 to 2 MPG on the EPA cycle), though performance clearly declined. For real world conditions and considering the way that big American cars were typically driven, I’m not convinced that an Olds 350 V8 with the 4-speed automatic, for example, would have been much worse than the 307 V8 in terms of fuel usage, but would have remained much more satisfying in terms of responsiveness. Seems like the 350 should have at least remained available as an option….
As for C&D’s differing results between the 1978 and 1981 Cadillacs, I’d have to assume that they drove both cars hard, as they typically did all their other test cars. So I know it’s not a precise, scientifically accurate metric, I still think it counts a fair contrast, as does the comparison between the 300SD and DeVille observed mileage in the April 1981 issue. Who knows if something funky was going on with that particular V8-6-4 in the test DeVille, and/or whether the problem was the result of the quirks and inconsistencies with the “too early” variable displacement technology?
I don’t know what C&D was doing to that poor Cadillac to get only 11 mpg but in Popular Mechanics PM owners report of the 81 Deville, owners of the V8-6-4 were getting 14.2/19.2 mpg city/hwy. FWIW 9.5% complained about fuel consumption and 13.9% reported problems with the V8-6-4 system. I know that PM owners reports were surveys of only a few months of ownership (similar to the J.D. Power initial quality survey) but FWIW 93.3% of 81 Deville owners indicated they would buy another.
Very interesting data. After a few months of ownership, however, the fact that basically 14% of customers had issues with the V8-6-4 is a terrible indictment. I am sure that number continued to climb as the car added age and mileage. Within a few years, used car guides were very clearly saying “stay away!” which was an enormous blow to Cadillac’s reputation.
I wonder how this statistic compares with the early owner feedback on the Olds 350 Diesel? That engine was initially praised as a breakthrough, though it very quickly developed a terrible reputation. But I think if you had queried Olds 88 and 98 Diesel owners after a few months in 1978, they would have praised their choice and committed to buying another….
I also think word of mouth was lethal among Cadillac’s customer base. My grandmother’s next door neighbor was the matriarch of a family that owned a successful Cadillac dealership, and she was always a huge booster for the brand. She got a new Fleetwood every year (always in red, so now that I think of it, her 1981 would have been finished in “Victorian Plum” like C&D’s test car, though at least she had leather seats), but she admitted she “didn’t love” the V8-6-4 and that “lots of them had problems.” She wasn’t sorry to see the 1981 go, though its 1982 replacement was terrible too. Her sons were canny enough to see the writing on the wall, and they wisely sold the Cadillac franchise by the mid-1980s.
97.4% of 1978 Olds 98 diesel owners reported they would buy another, so more than the V8-6-4 Caddy.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=Uc8DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=popular+mechanics+pm+owners+report+oldsmobile+98+diesel&source=bl&ots=aHCEGUKBBi&sig=0djiwR7dPvxHSxzYn__d52jtOPU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8yYLduNHaAhWo6IMKHcvXAxUQ6AEINTAC#v=onepage&q&f=false
Would it help if I told you my folk’s ’79 consistently turned 16-17 on the highway, while my Dealer’s ’81 Fleetwood (when it was running) hit about 12. The Eldo with the 4100 could hiot 17-18, but only if there wasn’t any hills involved. I remember one run over the Siskiyous was barely 14 mpg.
I personally buy the smaller/more efficient engine theory only because it also involves a smaller, more efficient car to motivate.
In an era when manufacturers fitted factory alloy wheels to their luxury models as standard equipment nothing marks failure better than cheap chintzy fake wire wheel hubcaps, never mind the mechanical missteps the brand made.
I’ve often wondered how many Lincoln Town Cars were “sold” by owning a Cadillac in the early/mid 1980’s?
Henry Ford II was overheard remarking once, at the Detroit Auto Show, that Cadillac had done more to sell Lincolns than Ford had ever been able to do on their own.
Ha! Awesome quote.
Many of my parent’s more upscale (than us) friends were dumping their 3 and 4 year old De Villes in the mid 1980’s and becoming satisfied, first time Lincoln Town Car owners.
They never returned to the Cadillac family of cars.
My wife bought her father an ‘81 Eldorado Biratiz, white on white on white, with the deactivation V8-6-4 to drive when visiting her inPalm Springs. He loved it, me, not so much.
Paul, is there a way to have shorter timer on posting a comment than 15 minuets? My pc & iPad sometimes lock up and don’t post if I do something else while waiting, Dave
Paul, is there a way to have shorter timer on posting a comment than 15 minuets?
I don’t understand what exactly you’re asking. Can you be more specific?
When I post a comment it starts a 15 minuet timer before it posts, at least for me, is there an option for 3 or 5 minutes, yes I have a cat & much can go wrong in 15 minutes if the pc (laptop) is left open.
That sounds like the edit timer, the post should be immediate
That’s what I’m thinking, but I’m not so familiar with it, since I don’t have that.
Thanks for this definitive review of the 81 Cadillac and the automotive landscape of the time, I’m going to bookmark it for future reference. Rich Ceppos sure wasn’t much of a prognosticator when he wrote “it won’t be long before the biggest baddest American luxocruiser goes the way of the cowboy.” He was only off by 15 years.
Actually, I think he rather nailed it. 15 years in the history of the big American car isn’t at all long. And the cowboy didn’t disappear overnight either. What’s significant is that he rightly predicted the continual decline of the sector and eventually demise.
Ford planted the seeds of Lincoln’s own troubles in this era, though; part of seizing the opportunity handed them by a troubled Cadillac was putting massive amounts of Town Cars into rental fleets, Hertz and Budget mainly (iirc both were owned, in large part if not fully, by Ford) with Budget in particular heavily advertising a TC rental for the price of a subcompact from “the other guys”.
Short-term this was a brilliant move, putting new Lincolns in the hands of a lot of middle-aged business travelers and vacationers who hadn’t considered a Ford product in years if ever; long term, it gave Lincoln a taste for the volume heavy fleet sales give…
To me, Cadillac lost it after 1956. Take a look at the interior of a Caddy (or Senior Buick) four door sedan from, say, 1950 to 1956 and you see acres of legroom in the rear and ease of entry. The Caddy though, had the Presence when the valet brought the car back to the owner. In my view, Cadillac sedans can go either in the direction of the performance machine (go after BMW etc. ) or go for the steady stream of Baby Boomers retiring into their gated communities. In my view, these aching joint/back/knee types want a car that confers status, but gives them an excuse to buy a car they can get into without the contortion required by the typical modern auto (including the terrible legroom SUVs)
One of the best pieces on Cadillac’s downfall that I’ve ever read, anywhere. I think I was shaking my head while reading most of it. Outstanding.
If the Cimarron had survived to the alphanumeric naming era, perhaps it should have been called the SMH? 😉
Cts= cimmaron touring sedan. Or is it catera touring sedan.
CT 6
Connecticut 6?
What a fantastic read. If only Cadillac management had had your insight back in 1981.
A fantastic read…well done!
Excellent post GN! Very enjoyable read overall. I would agree that these Cadillac’s were when Cadillac was near rock bottom. As other’s have commented though, Cadillac’s long decent started well before these cars were released. Someone else commented that 1966 was the last year of a good Cadillac. I’d generally agree that that’s when the big downslide began.
Remember the well known six Luxury car test that C/D ran in the mid 1960’s? Cadillac was at the top of the pack among international competitors. Only the incredible Mercedes 600 beat it out, but the Cadillac was generally well praised. As time when on the brand was cheapened with the introduction of low priced models to catch more sales. The cars interiors became less and less specialized, with more used of plastics. By the mid 1970’s, how much difference was there from a Deville to a Caprice? Cadillac was resting on it’s laurels by then, and just soaking up the sales, all the while killing itself slowly. Imagine a comparison test in the late 70’s versus international cars?
I’d argue the downsized ’77 Fleetwoods were not really great Cadillacs (I am not saying they were bad cars). No doubt the downsized full size line up was revolutionary, but more so as a Chevrolet or maybe Oldsmobile. They missed the mark for Cadillac. These cars were a vast improvement over the massive cars that preceded it, with much better dynamics, space utilization and fuel economy. However, they still had cheap interiors with qualities and materials not really all that much better than a Caprice Classic. Cadillac just didn’t take the car far enough to make it special. There was little that was really special in these cars to capture the market that was moving the Mercedes Benz.
Where Cadillac really failed in this era was the Seville. Had they continued on the path they started in 1975, but went further, it would have been perfect timing. Cadillac knew there was a market in that size of luxury car and had the time and sales to justify a dedicated platform. However, it neglected to do so, releasing a car that was way out of step with the times.
That said, as bad as the V-8-6-4 368’s were, the HT4100’s were far worse IMO and the nail in the coffin for Cadillac. After the failure of the 368, Cadillac rushed the HT4100 into production, in the RWD platform where they were really never intended to go. The early 4.1’s only made 125hp in a car weighting well over 4000lbs. However, the worst part was the small displacement meant that there was a significant loss of low end horsepower/torque compared to even the anemic 5.0L V8’s of the era. Cadillac compensated with lower rear gears, but the HT4100 Fleetwoods were truly terrible performers and unreliable.
Further, the 368 wasn’t really that big of step backward from the 425. See Dean Edwards post above. His experience is fairly accurate, as C/D only got a 18.2 secs @ 78 MPH out of a 425 powered Coupe Deville. The 368 was certainly far better than the 4.1L or the 307’s in terms of performance. And it was also stronger than the early 1980’s 302 Fords, which were particularly weak kneed.
While the multi-displacement 368 had some driveability issues, it was relatively easy to overcome. While I agree no luxury car owner should have to “undo” GM’s engineering, at least that was an option with this engine. Underneath it all, it was a old proven Cadillac V8 that ran fine. The HT4100’s on the other hand had no option to undo it’s poor engineering.
I’d also mention that the Lincoln’s of this era weren’t all that great either. Sure they didn’t have the multi-displacement issues, but Ford’s CFI system was far from great. Not only that, but the early AOD’s were far from trouble free. I’d argue that the Lincoln Town car became a really good car in 1986, once it received the MPFI system. By then Cadilllac had the 307 in the Cadillac Broughams, and the 302 MPFI was hands down a better all round engine.
Imagine if Cadillac had taken the basic B (which was a darn good basic car to begin with) and given it the Nova-to-Seville treatment, with a higher attention to interior materials.
I didn’t see any significant difference in the interior material quality and design between the Seville and Fleetwood, except for not having that velour. The Seville was no Meredes that way, especially in the dash, switchgear, instruments and door decor/trim.
Poor phrasing on my part- I should have said “BUT with a higher attention to interior materials.”
As time when on the brand was cheapened with the introduction of low priced models to catch more sales.
FWIW, Cadillac always had a low-cost line; the Series 62 before it was renamed Calais in the mid 60s. And they were trimmed pretty modestly, especially the further back in time you go. But in the 40s, 50s and early 60s, these low-end Cadillacs were often still used as commercial vehicles. But Cadillac should have ditched that market sooner, and raised its standards and prices; instead all of its models trended downwards in price during the 60s and 70s, as GN’s chart shows.
You’re right Paul, in my rush to type this out last night I made a mistake. I was thinking of the Calais as it in my mind represented the move down market but in reality it was just a renamed series 62 which was always pretty basic for a Cadillac. What I was trying to articulate was that Cadillac moved down market over this time period which is what GN’s chart also shows. This was gave Cadillac the short term sales success but ultimately damaged the brand in the long run.
This is one of the finest articles to appear here, and that is really saying something considering the quality of work CC attracts.
To me, it’s interesting to compare the rebirth of Cadillac compared to Buick. I think Buick has been a little more successful in its comeback, and I’m not just saying that because I just bought one :). The fact that my wife wouldn’t even consider Cadillac but OKed the Buick speaks volumes to me on how each brand is regarded in its class. Cadillac suffers from the “why buy a Cad instead of BMW/MB/Tesla/(possibly Lexus?)” mentality of the weight class it’s trying to punch in. Whereas Buick can actually compete pretty decently with the Acuras, platinum grade Fords, and higher end midgrade brands in its price class. We actually did cross shop the Buick with a similar-cost Hyundai, and the Hyundai had the smoother powertrain, but the Buick had a more comfortable interior and (of course subjectively) was a better styled car.
If I was single, Cadillac would have been on my radar as I really do like the A&S styling. I probably would have at least test-driven one. And maybe have been disappointed? But my wife, who I consider to be way more mainstream in car tastes than I am, wouldn’t even think of it. If we were going to go to that price class, there was only one badge she’d really consider, and it starts with B and ends with W. (Mercedes are apparently for old people, yet she likes the Buick. No wonder the auto industry is so weird, dysfunctional, and interesting: their consumers are all nutcases.)
Always wondered if anybody had tested a full size with the 4.1 Buick V6. Now I know they did. I have one complete and running with a light rod knock and a functioning 200C auto removed from a 80 Electra. When I was driving the car it seemed faster than 23 seconds to 60 though. Wish I had timed it. I need a car to put it in. And I always preferred Lincolns, even during Cadillacs ‘Golden Age’.
My 79 Thunderbird weighs about what that Lincoln did with basically the same hp/torque rating. Of course mines a 3-speed with 2.75 gears. I get about 15 on the highway and take about a second longer in the 0-60 sweepstakes.
“Though the potent gas-powered V8s like the 403 and 350 were gone from GM’s C-Body roster at Buick and Olds by 1981, at least there was still a decent V8 on offer. The Olds-built 307 V8 was no powerhouse, but it was smooth running (no cylinder-deactivation hiccups) and bullet-proof (no early visits to dealers with brand new cars suffering poorly running engines). Plus, Oldsmobile and Buick offered something on their full-sized cars that Cadillac did not: a 4-speed automatic. Sad but true—the flagship division of General Motors stuck with the old 3-speed automatic for 1981 while its less expensive sister divisions got the newer, more efficient transmission.”
Having owned an ’82 Delta 88 with the 307 and AOD transmission, I’ll state that combined, they were less crappy than the Cadillac drivetrain, but Cadillac was fortunate to hang on to the 3-speed as long as possible.
The 307 was plagued with multiple metals and gaskets that were sensitive to coolant deterioration and tended to spring internal / external leaks.
The AOD was simply not ready for prime time. When mine crapped out, the transmission shop recommended a 3-speed transplant. It improved the driving experience for the most part, just in time for engine problems.
The car was pretty spent at 80,000 miles.
GM was in a world of hurt when loyalists were scrambling for Olds and Buick products because they were less shitty than a Cadillac.
The ’82 Olds was my last GM car to date. Prior to that, I was a GM loyalist of the first degree.
AOD was a Ford transmission.
Four speed auto attached to Olds 307 was a member of the TH200 family tree. Picked because it was lighter weight than the TH400 or TH350. (And a grade A POS IMHO.) Another GM misstep in the penny-wise pound foolish vein.
Yes, Ford did refer to their transmission as AOD, but the THM200-4R transmission that I believe was in my car was an Automatic OverDrive transmission.
My misadventure with it was various. My dad’s company car was also an ’82 Delta 88, and he complained of his “hunting” on our rolling Midwestern interstates as it hit hills and went in and out of OD. Mine never seemed to hunt, and in hindsight, I wonder of OD was ever working.
On a fishing trip with three friends, my transmission “popped” when trying to get a little steam to pass a car. Suddenly, anything over about 50 mph resulted in a screaming engine and no additional speed.
I stopped at a small town Olds dealer and they said I should be able to limp the 400 miles home at 45-50 mph. They were right, but wow, that was not fun.
The THM200-4R apparently is close to plug and play in cars designed (or originally designed) for the THM350. I’m not sure, but that is probably what the transmission shop put in my car when they replaced it.
I had the early overdrive selector quadrant, PRND321. D was automatic overdrive, 3 was no OD, an 2 and 1 were the usual. When The new transmission was put in, anything below neutral was a feel arrangement, but easy to get used to.
The early GM and Ford 4 speed OD transmissions were similar in a lot of respects, including poor reliability.
Yes, I too experienced the 200-4R in my 84 Olds 98. I bought the car with 54k on the odo and had to have the trans rebuilt at 55k. It was slippy on shifts and I stupidly did not get it looked at before I bought it. “How bad can it be at this low milage? Probably just a bad vacuum modulator.” That was an expensive Oops. The shop rebuilt it well and I nad no more trouble with it for the next 4 years I owned it.
Although it was a fragile POS, I liked its shift characteristics much better than any Ford AOD I ever drove.
As others have said, this was really excellent, George, a wonderful and correct summation.
My opinion is that Cadillac is completely beyond resuscitating at this point. It’s been close to 40 years now which is two generations with very few bright spots beyond a few one-and-done glimmers of hope. Very few people of my generation aspire to own a Cadillac besides maybe the Escalade and even less people of the generation to which for example Brendan belongs do. And the Escalade, while desirable to some, has a bit of an image problem, wherein many of the truly desirable customers choose the similarly priced GMC Denali specifically due to it NOT being a Cadillac. The Doctors’ wives around here drive Yukon Denali, not Escalade and money isn’t the issue. Something like a Range Rover or large Mercedes SUV generally does NOT have such an issue but are not as large either. Wait until there is an RRXL or a MB O-class (O for OverTheTop), both with 15-20% more wheelbase, width, and towing capacity, GM may lose more business.
In my opinion, the best course of action would be for GM (if they are serious) to start developing a new Cadillac by a different name (such as Aurora was once spoken of as a successor to Olds). Let current dealers remain Cadillac dealers but realistically end up starving them of product over the next decade, but if they want the new brand franchise they need to start over in a new location with a new facility, the two brands can NOT be intermingled at all. No taint. Basically create an American Lexus (which isn’t a perfect summation as they have lost their way a bit as well).
Cadillac is simply too far gone to bring back to the level that GM desires it to be at. Start the new brand, throw money at it, get the right people to support it from a marketing and branding standpoint and most importantly from a product standpoint and ideally the next couple of generations will support it. Tesla has done it from scratch, Lexus did it, Hyundai is having issues with Genesis for a number of obvious reasons but Hyundai itself is in a position that I never imagined them to be in twenty years ago so the possibility is there. But the Cadillac name, once so proud, is now so tarnished, it’s like a faded 90’s Gold Package, that color ain’t coming back no matter how hard you rub it.
Start over, stop throwing good money after bad. I can’t see myself ever truly desiring a Cadillac and I’ve certainly owned plenty of other brands over the years. Every car I ever bought I desired at the time (yes, I soured on some sooner than others but when I bought them, I wanted them), I haven’t felt that way about Cadillac.
One big problem: China. Cadillac sales in China are bigger than in the US and are up 45% this year so far YTD! It’s a very successful brand there, as it has none of the baggage it has here and in Europe.
What you’re proposing is just way too risky for GM. They’ll just do the best they can to hobble along and try to at least hang on to what they have here while riding the wave in China, which is the future of the brand, and increasingly, GM.
Great idea, but GM would never, never, ever consider doing it. Look at Buick. Same deal. China market makes it survive the bankruptcy reorganization. I would posit that you could take Cadillac and Buick and merge them into a Chinese only brand and not see overall profitability for GM change. GM should merge into just GM, and sell cars, trucks, and SUVs as GMs and leave it at that. If they want a luxury line, then create separate platforms and designs that are specific to the luxury market, and keep volume low and prices high. However, they want to have their cake and eat it too, so nothing will change, and we will continue to have this debate in five year’s time when the next person takes charge, promising something new, exciting, and different…..
As many others have said, really great post GN.
The Cimarron seems unfathomable until one recalls that article from the New Yorker here on CC a little while back, allied with the prelude in Brock Yates piece from a decade earlier. You can be sure that the execs of Myopia genuinely thought their car was superior. After all, clean-sheeet, front drive, rack steering, roomier, lighter, the future compared to the 320i. (And indeed, if they’d used the Euro family 2 OHC motor, kept the Euro suspension, which handled well, and put more effort into making it, they might’ve had something at least bit closer to the mark, but ofcourse they didn’t).
It must be said that Cadillac had lost most cylinders in the rest of the world long before the debacles of ’81. Probably from the fifties on, when chrome breasts starting festooning them. Boobs, nipples, fins, swoops, gunsights and above all, size. Folk like my grandfather loved and respected US cars and admired Cadillacs, but thought the later cars just silly. How is such an aircraft carrier of a bejewelled thing possibly classy, or a leader? Perhaps especially once the ’60’s were done and respect for what America might represent began to change.
They were hopeless in Europe, where no amount of money could make the things FIT into many a city. Oversized, overweight, and over ‘ere, to rehash an old saying about US servicemen in WW2. (This isn’t to say that many a European wouldn’t have bought a big car if fuel was cheap and roads big, but ofcourse, if your aunt was a man she’d be your uncle).
Beyond superb HVAC stuff, and the automatics, their engineering grew stunted, with massive live axles and gigantic iron pushrod motors and drum brakes. Safety features only when govt forced. This wasn’t the Standard of anything.
They became cars for the crass. They became a statement of poor taste, of ill-breeding. I should add that I personally think ’60’s Caddies are some of the best styling made, but many others just see SIZE, and laughable excess.
Once GM fumbled so badly in ’81, and the unchallenged idea of Caddie as superior fumbled too, US buyers doubtless began to see there were objectively better things out there. Not to mention better ways to signal status, and the type of status too.
It hasn’t been the Standard of the World for a very long time, and even if tomorrow they began make the best car on the market, it wouldn’t sell much. The CT6, an excellent machine by all accounts, proves that point. Too much time, and too much lost.
Given how out of date this everyone thought this car already was in 1981, it’s astonishing to realize Cadillac was still selling this same car (except for the drivetrain) over a decade later….
“… rightly predicted the continual decline of the sector [big cars] and eventually demise.”
Well, big cars have been replaced by huge truck based Utility Vehicles as status symbols. And the German lux brands are making mint with SUV’s that are far from the 1970s/80s ‘sweet handling dream cars’ of R&T, C&D, and young Boomers.
Fine analysis, thank you. Watching this fall unfold year by year was painful for those of us who grew up with Cadillac at its best.
Good post GN
I think the technology (cylinder deactivation) is sound but GM was too far ahead of the time for it to work with the technology we had back then. Now with fuel injection and advance computer systems this technology works great. (Of course by the same token it is not needed now because thanks to the same tech, we can have a small 4 or 6 cylinder 300hp engine that gets great gas mileage and don’t need a V8 for power)
However unlike the HT4100 and the GM diesel engines, the cylinder deactivation issue was not fatal to the engine and it did not require an engine replacement (just snipping a wire to put it into full time V8 mode)
When I grew up in the 1980’s the status cars were Lincolns, Benzes, BMW, Volvo 240s.
However I could never figure out the Yuppie obsession for the base model BMW 3 Series (E30). They were small and the interior looked like the same thing in a VW Rabbit(a cheap compact car) plus the base 4 cylinder engine really was not anything to write home about in the speed department. A E30 BMW M3 was a rocket but the base engine cars got passed by little old ladies pushing a shopping cart
GN – this is the best article I have read in years, wonderfully written and edited, images chosen and placed for optimal effect. Reading “It actually got far, far worse.” then scrolling down to see “Cimmaron” at top of next image said it all.
Comments have also been an education, particularly the increasing price spread between Caddy and M-B and effect of income tax rate on customer ability to pay. Helps explain why Pierce-Arrows fetched such high prices in the Teens.
Cadillac should have taken the ’73 S-Class as a technological call to arms just as the oil embargo prompted mainstream cars to loose weight and go FWD. The ’79 Eldorado could have had RWD, unibody, taught suspension and new OHC V8 of modest size. The car need not have looked like M-B, could have kept its American swagger. Front wheels needed moved forward a few inches and skirts could have been offered (Ninety Eight was the only big GM car in these years to offer them and I think they look better than DeVille and Electra). Seville would have followed in 1980 with longer wheelbase for improved rear legroom and more steeply raked backlight. Prices could have approached S-Class. Over time these cars would have re-positioned Cadillac. But there needed to be an overlap period because the traditional Cadillac sales still paid the bills. A RWD-based AWD crossover in 2000 would have helped get folks out of DeVille and set the marque on course to modern showroom.
I do remember our neighbor’s brand new ’75 Fleetwood Brougham parked in drive, dark blue inside and out including padded top. For a 12 year old kid that car was awe inspiring! We had Lincolns until the ’73 rusted prematurely. Replaced it with brand new ’77 Datsun 810, a poor man’s M-B. Never looked back.
The 864 was a good engine and these cars were used car bargains. All you had to do was disconnect the displacement on demand. It was worthless for saving gas. Those cars would have been fine with a decent rear end ratio and free flowing dual exhaust. The v6 , the diesel and the 4100 were abominations. As was the huge floppy rust bucket 71-76 full sized cars, the fwd replacements, the north star and the baby BMW wanna b cars and the hideous DTS.
In the 80s Lincoln was better and was improved constsntly Cadillac was decontented and ruined to the point that it could not compete with a chevycaprice much less a Lincoln or a Benz . Even the fifth avenue was a better car than a post 81 Cadillac..
I bet if Cadillac did nothing but put a 3.08 rear axle ratio and dual exhausts it would have gotten 4-5 mpg more in the real world. Would have adequate power and people would not be flooring it all the time. The best cars were the pre 71, 77-81, 91-96 full sized.
They should have in 81 built a better Lincoln. Then they would have been fine. DeVille with 368base 425 optional. All with dual exhaust and 3.0- 3.27 rear ends. Seville rear wheel drive with 368, eldorado fwd same. No cimmaron, no further downsizing. All engines with this injection. DeVille as is, Fleetwood with 3 more inches wheelbase and a rolls grill and Continental kit std. With extra chrome like olds had at the bottom.
And then there’s the long term reliability issue to be considered.
I still see several 1981 thru 1989 Lincoln Town Cars running around my almost upscale suburban neighborhood; cannot recall the last time I saw a Cadillac De Ville of this time period moving under it’s own power.
I think a lot of it had to do with the Town Car being a RWD platform with many cousins commonly appearing in junkyards. Easy to keep an old Town Car going cheaply, a FWD DeVille not so much. I couldn’t say a Town Car was built any better than a De Ville. How many FWD Continentals survived?
Weren’t the Cadillac De Villes rear wheel drive in the early/mid 1980’s?
“Weren’t the Cadillac De Villes rear wheel drive in the early/mid 1980’s?”
Through 1984. Although the later ones (82?-84) with the HT4100 engine did not provide rear wheel drive with much drive.
HA!
Yes, “Ice Wagon” slow they were.
An ’84 Lincoln Town Car felt like a Mustang G. T. by comparison.
I’m late to the party here – I owned two 1981 Cadillacs (a Fleetwood and a Deville) and spent some time driving an ’81 Eldorado. All 3 had the V8-6-4 engine.
This engine was better suited to the Eldo. The lighter body, more efficient THM 325 transmission and shorter final drive gear ratio suited the variable displacement engine. It moved the Eldo along well enough, smoothly and quietly and with no shudder or fuss. The car’s electronic display told you how many cylinders were active and I don’t recall any roughness in the transition, although there was an annoying momentary delay in power delivery, maybe a second, between flooring it and having all 8 cylinders kick in.
The ’81 Deville was a well – used car, but the engine, including the variable displacement feature still worked flawlessly. I bought it from the original owner who drove it for 16 years, with no trouble to the engine or electronic controls. He did have trouble with leaking exhaust manifolds, and his mechanic had to invent a repair – he used small very stiff springs under the bolts so the manifolds had a bit of room to shift without cracking as they heated up and cooled down.
The ’81 Fleetwood had been modified to run on all 8 cylinders all the time. It (and the Deville) both had very tall 2.5:1 rear end ratios, which killed low – speed responsiveness. I think this was a way to offset the inefficient THM400 tranny, which sucked up power and lacked a locking converter.
I swapped a modified ’70 Olds 455 into the Fleetwood, which turned it into a 150 mph road monster, with rapid, tire smoking acceleration, and effortless speed and power. Still have it, awesome car.
Otherwise this is a good article . I agree with the marketing and product errors of Cadillac at the time. They spent far too much time chasing the ageing repeat buyers, and debasing the division’s reputation.
Great analysis! Clearly the Olds 98 was the best choice. Still a little lost in the venue for the photo shoot here. You don’t see many truck stop country clubs now, especially with a mechanical bull in the parking lot. Was this an 80’s thing I missed out on at the time?
This was the time period of the Travolta movie Urban Cowboy, which was HUGE, and, as the article leads with, big, ostentatious Cadillacs had been the car of choice of many a flashy oil tycoon and rancher ( I grew up in Houston, and can vouch for that).
When a Caddy was a CADDY!!!! Except for the Cimmaron. That was something a Caddy pooped out!!
I chortled while reading David E. Davis’ Rolls Royce/Cadillac comparison in the “Counterpoint” section of the “Car & Driver” road test. Truly the “Real World” truth!
A more affluent, upscale family, on the edge of my parent’s social orbit, always enjoyed having a Rolls Royce or Bentley in their carport during the 1970’s and 1980’s.
They also always had an older, more reliable Cadillac or Lincoln as their “back up car” for the all too frequent times when their British status symbols “failed to proceed” past the driveway.
Both their live in maid and their au pair always grabbed the Caddy or Town Car as the British cars left them on the side of the road, more than once, during the prolonged heat & humidity periods here in New Orleans.
When the (at the time brand new) Lexus LS400 became known to them they dumped the British cars and never left the Lexus family.
Clearly the ’81 was a disaster, and imo the ’80 re-do just looked cheaper in general. Cad had the opportunity to really break new ground in ’77, and while those through the ’79s were much improved cars, if they had really switched direction instead of same-old-but-better, by designing a real style and quality leader in the soon to be coming fashion being heralded by BMW/M-B, they really could have turned things around from the image they’d been stuck with by producing their’ bloated, kitschy and cantankerous whales of the mid 70s.
This 1973 LaScala proposal, clean, modern, tasteful, yet clearly in the US idiom, if built with top-quality materials and, say, the ’75 Seville drivetrain with an aluminium block sohc version of the Olds/Seville efi 350 engine and well-developed IRS, imo could have led Cadillac to a brilliant future, but it was not to be, yet one more of the seemingly countless failures of vision of the GM leadership of that time. I’d have bought one instead of the BMW 2800 I had at the time, being in my late 20s, just the kind of buyer they should have been looking for to prevail into the future.
Lindamood/Jennings didn’t know – like others – what “Standard of the World” meant.
It never meant apogee or acme, it meant they had standardized parts – which was an advancement at the time:
Cadillac was the first American car to win the Royal Automobile Club of the United Kingdom’s Dewar Trophy by successfully demonstrating the interchangeability of its component parts during a reliability test in 1908; this spawned the firm’s slogan “Standard of the World”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac
That said, they were spot on w/ Cadillac’s half-baked tech – altho I like cloth interiors rather than the plastic-coated leather that prevails today.
Excellent article! I liked the juxtaposition of the Caddy in the lead photo in front of a truck stop no less (what the heck is that cowboy riding on top of anyway!?) No self respecting Cadillac should be caught dead in front of a building with “OCKTAILS” as a sign.
I burst out laughing at the Whore drawers reference, and also the bobbing head dogs in the review. Boudoirs? LOL. I suppose that was the name of luxury at the time, no matter how tasteless in retrospect.
I saw a Caddy the other week and decided to shoot some pics of it, I rather liked the way it rode along in style before my eyes. Looking at it later, I could not tell without a lot of help from the good folks at google what year it was, and whether it was an ATS or a CTS. I never would have confused a Sedan de Ville with a Coupe de Ville or a Fleetwood previously. Upon close inspection I found a ding in the front of this car (which I deemed to be a 2006 CTS based on the front turn signals and the grille crossbars) that appeared to have been left unrepaired, much like George’s Mom, on an otherwise clean looking car.
Such a decline from a long previously respected brand. My friend who had the ’66 Caddy really felt he was riding in style in his machine, as powerful and luxurious as it was, in stark contrast to the sputtering gasping rides given above.
(what the heck is that cowboy riding on top of anyway!?)
Mechanical Bull…
You’re right to point out the “OCKTAILS” sign-I noticed it too, and I would wager good money it was no accident that was the photo they chose to run with.
I said this in the 1969 thread the other day, but I think the die was cast for Cadillac around 1975. By then, cheapened materials and design, bloated styling, and the knock-off effects of moving other GM makes upmarket had already taken their toll on Cadillac.
It’s actually neat re-reading these after their initial run earlier this year. On re-read, especially after the 1969 piece, it’s pretty obvious that Cadillac was not top of the heap even when these cars bowed (let alone how the history ultimately played out). All the writers across the several magazines shown here all use the same sorts of language; not a lot of it particularly laudatory per se-polite, yes, respectful of Cadillac’s reputation, indeed. Laudatory? No. Read the 1969 pieces then read these. Some of the same words appear (comfort, not handling, bla bla blah), but the ’69 pieces seem much more complementary than these do.
Cadillac in 1969, at the height of their revelries, chose to have another drink instead of switching over to water. 1975, they were slurring their speech but still talking and standing. 1981 was the beginning of the hangover. 1986 was them throwing up everything they’d ever thought of eating. In 1991, they found out they’d made an absolute ass of themselves. Sometime after that, they realized they weren’t getting invited back to the next party.
C&D was at their peak when writing about the past-their-peak Cadillac.
I miss peak C&D….
As do I!
After an over 50 years subscription ride (first thru my Father and then me); I didn’t buy another ticket when the renewal was due a couple of years ago.
Just nothing there left anymore.
🙁
Some of that continued into the early 2000s at least:
https://www.caranddriver.com/archives/2002-cadillac-escalade-ext-archived-test-review
John Phillips is the only glimmer of ‘Peak C&D’ left.
The model riding the mechanical bull looks a lot like popular country singer Eddie Rabbitt, circa 1981. As Rabbitt’s crossover popularity somewhat peaked around that time.
Funny, because my first thought was that the man riding the mechanical bull looked like Randy Owen from Alabama.
All of which, I guess, shows that that model was very well typecast there.
Good call Eric. No question, country (and mechanical bulls), went mainstream the year before thanks to Urban Cowboy.
An excellent writeup, I’m glad this was reposted. A 37 year wandering in the wilderness for a brand that created so much cachet for itself that when I hear the word “Cadillac” I still think of large, expensive luxury sedans for the successful even though I was never alive when that was true.
Who the hell knows what to do with this brand now. The luxury field is full. Mercedes is still big despite abandoning so much of the engineering quality that made their 70s and 80s models so prestigious. Frankly, the garish Escalade is probably the closest thing to what the market wants now.