Oh man, it’s been a while since we did one of these, right? I was on such a streak there, for a while. Maybe a continual daily feature just isn’t in my bones? Well, whatever, it is what it is, and what it is happens to be time to bring back my attempts to defend the poor cars so unfairly maligned in the 2005 book, The World’s Worst Cars, written by Craig Cheetham.
As you may recall, the way we do this is to have an archaic Commodore PET computer pick a random page from the book, and then defend and redeem the car shown on that page, because I maintain that Mr.Cheetham has created a book not of The World’s Worst Cars, as the title claims, but rather of some of the World’s More Interesting Cars. Most of the cars in this book – perhaps all – do not deserve to be trapped in between the covers of this deceitful tome. And I’m going to redeem them, one by one. So let’s do it! We’re back, baby!
So, what page of this cursed book did our 8-bit friend pick for us today?
Page 82! Okay. what do we find on page 82?
The Cadillac Seville! We actually just did a big redemption piece on the Seville, and you should probably go read that, right now, even, because it does a very good job of redeeming this car. That doesn’t mean I get to just stop here, though – oh, no, around here we do what the Commodore PET tells me. And the PET says defend the car on page 82, so I will.
I think I can defend the Seville without repeating too much from our other defense, especially because Cheetham seems to be focusing primarily on the styling of the Seville as its biggest offense, and I think he’s dead wrong there. If you’re going to try and justify putting the Seville in any sort of “Worst Car” book, you’d most likely want to focus on some of its more troubled engine options, like the ill-fated Oldsmobile diesel or the bold-but-flawed cylinder-de-activating V8-6-4 engine.
Those engines were, charitably, garbage, but there were, fortunately, a number of other more reliable V8s that could be bolted in. The Seville was one of the first really “modern” Cadillacs, with a front-wheel drive layout adapted from the Toronado/Eldorado platform. This allowed the car to be quite roomy for its (relatively) compact size, which never hurts. It’s by no means a small car as it is, but compared to previous Cadillacs, it’s surprisingly lean.
In his excoriation of the Seville, Craig Cheetham says things like
“… the US luxury automaker laughed in the face of good taste when it unveiled this abomination in 1979.”
and
“The Seville was overly adorned with chintzy false chrome trim and was also a ridiculous shape.”
He’s dead-ass wrong on everything here. The Seville, if anything, was incredibly restrained chrome-trim-wise when compared with other Cadillacs. I mean, has the man seen other Cadillacs? It’s not like they were shy with the chrome. The Seville was downright understated.
And as far as that shape goes, yes, that’s the distinctive part of this car, and yes, it was controversial at the time. But an abomination? No. Unexpected, maybe, novel, distinctive, unusual, striking, confusing, all of these are valid adjectives.
Craig, still hammering away on that bustle-back, goes on to say
“The tail end is definitely the talking point of the Seville because it is completely out of harmony with the rest of the car’s design. Cadillac never did supply a reason for its stunted appearance.”
The fuck, Craig? Did you do any research for this? Cadillac absolutely provided a reason for this design. It was deliberately designed to evoke bustle-back designs and proportions from luxury cars of the past. Look:
It’s not a mystery, it’s pretty clear what Cadillac was going for, here. In fact, legendary GM designer Bill Mitchell was well-known for his love of pre-WWII luxury cars, with their dramatic long hood/short rear deck proportions, and he wanted to bring some of that back to modern cars. Another Cadillac designer, Wayne Kady, was thinking along the same lines, and was doing some really dramatic sketches for a possible future Cadillac V16 car:
That’s full of concept car glorious madness, but you can see the seeds of the Seville’s tail end in there. The Seville was a modern car designed to evoke proportions and styles of a bygone era, but updated into a current design vocabulary.
And you know what? I think it worked! Sure, it freaked out some of Cadillac’s more traditional buyers and people like Craig who seem to shit their pants in alarm every time something they didn’t absolutely, 100% see coming invades their line of sight. This was a Cadillac that looked like a Cadillac, but also brought something new – something new that was, ironically, something old – to the table, and people noticed.
Even if it wasn’t everyone’s mug of motor oil, other companies were impressed enough to try their own knockoffs, like Chrysler with the Imperial:
Cadillac was onto something here, even if people like Craig just assumed they were on something.
This is yet another case of a car ending up in The World’s Worst Cars for daring to be interesting or unexpected. Sure, the Seville had its share of flaws and problems and is by no means the best Cadillac or even the Best Cadillac of the Late 1970s, but it’s also in no way a Worst Car, at all, and its novel styling is no reason to try and make it so.
Today, I think people would find the Seville to be pretty cool, a design standout among a sea of almost indistinguishable cars of its era. Once again, Craig, you’re wrong.
The ’81 Imperial picture at the end there I think did the concept better, the back end of the Caddy has everything at too fast and angle and ends up looking stunted. Look at where the back edge of the roof is on the ’52 Rolls compared to where it is on the Caddy, it’s too far forward on the Caddy.
Yeah, I’m gonna have to go ahead and disagree with this one. The first gen Seville was pretty nice for its’ day. Of course,I was driving a ’65 Dart wagon at the time, so everything new seemed nice. But the second gen? Nope
Is that a 68-72 Corvette front bumper on the back of that Caddy V16?
I agree with the author on this one.
This car is abominably ugly.
That said, there’s a certain charm that comes with driving such an eyesore. The diesel is the one to have, because it is offensive not just to sight, but to smell, taste, and hearing. Touch too, if the motor mounts crumble away.
I wouldn’t mind owning a Seville Opera, black and chrome in the outside, red velvet interior inside. Other than perhaps a 70s-era Stutz Blackhawk, this car is peak baroque.
No.
It never had one completely reliable or reasonably-powered powertrain choice as delivered from the factory.
The styling aft of the doors was a step too far after the elegant, understated previous Seville (and alongside the cleanly-styled Eldorado – particularly in Touring Coupe specification)
And while the chrome was not fake – the overdone bling was. (Again, look at the Eldorado Touring Coupe across the showroom for some serious contrast)
Just because the other two followed the leader off the cliff doesn’t mean this was a good idea.
Not buying the styling defense. To me, this thing always looked as though Cadillac had separate design teams working on the front and back of the car in isolation from each other. The bustleback isn’t inherently horrible but it looks horrible on this car.
It looks the barber of Seville’s razor slipped.
It originated with a discarded styling sketch for what became the 1967 Eldorado, a highly exaggerated drawing of a car with a 1930s Hooper-bodied Rolls-Royce look, Bill Mitchell was absolutely fascinated with that sketch and wouldn’t let go of it, kept having designers toy around with that theme over and over again for the next decade, waiting to find a way to use the bustle back in a production car. The 1980 Seville was the last new car he signed off on before retirement, a final “this is what I want to do, don’t like it? Too bad, I’m Audi 5000” on his way out. As I understand it, the hard points of the E-body platform meant they they couldn’t do much different in the front end, but were able to force-fit the bustleback shape to the rear. It was also a colossal misreading of why luxury car buyers in the 1970s seemed t like retro styling cues – they liked them, because of the perception that a few 1930s touches made cars look expensive, it was about looking upscale, not about looking old. Mitchell didn’t get that, and though a really heavy-handed, over the top, retro theme would do gangbusters.
Cheetham was aiming at the wrong target as usual. The neo-retro bustle back was interesting to look at and enjoyed a brief vogue in early 80s. The problem with the 2nd generation Seville was the engines and build quality. The first few years you had the legendarily bad Oldsmobile diesel, and V8-6-4, which were so bad they dropped the diesel and stooped to offering a bored Buick V6 as an option. The subsequent HT4100 was equally bad so the best engines were the Olds 307 and the 368 with variable displacement disabled plus the declasse but reliable V-6. This was compounded by 1970s British Leyland levels of quality in what was supposed to be “The Standard of the World”. The only Cadillac more embarrassing was the 4 cylinder Cimarron.
I been thinking and I’ve been drinking and well that is all I remember of the lyrics. But what I have thunken is it is poor for to attack the stupid authority writing the book. If you aren’t doing it daily let’s send the car to the author and have you two face off. Let’s admit it this article was kind of just stating features and saying not so bad. I want a claymation grudge match. And a better idea let’s get that Miami review guy from this generation to be the judge on who won
I mentioned this on the other article, but I had a friend with one of these back in the early-mid 90s. It was both ugly and comfy, but that goofy rear end that made for odd proportions also made the trunk nearly useless aside for things like golf bags. Want to put rectangular luggage in it? Too bad!
If there’s a bustle in your driveway, don’t be charmed now
It’s just a Seville* from the Malaise
* pronounced see-ville
I find the design somewhat trunk-ated.
I feel like I need to correct Torch in this article the 8-6-4 engine was not garbage the fuel injection system was. The 368ci Cadillac engine is a good engine with a carb.
The 8-6-4 was perfectly fine if you bypassed the cylinder deactivation and just drove it as a normal V8, was just a matter of pulling one wire on the transmission
The HT4100 and Olds diesel were both hot garbage (though the former was fixed when it was bored out into the 4.5 and the latter was largely corrected by the aftermarket). Oddly, the best engine to get in a bustleback was probably the Buick V6, which was available as a factory rebate option for ’82 and ’83, very underpowered, but at least it was reliable and with no major engineering flaws.
I love a brokeback sedan. My old Pininfarina Peugeot 504 also had it:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BhOoQfMB4LM/
But the 504 is a seriously, timeless elegant car.
This Caddy is just the epithome of tacky.
Lincoln had the bustleback Continental too. Clearly this design was popular at one point if all of the Big 3 had examples of it.
It was a natural extension of the 1930s decade nostalgia that had been going on with upscale cars all during the 1970s, obviously not as extreme as those neoclassic cars from Clenet, Zimmer, Excalibur, etc, but certainly pushing the retro influences as far as the Big Three were willing to go.
not just cars: look at production design in TV and movies from the 80’s. All the neon and stark edges were a big call out to Deco. You could see it from the titles to the wardrobes to the set furniture.
True, you can really see it in suits – lot of ’70s trends (wide ties, wide lapels, spearpoint collard, plaid, revival of double breasted jackets) were really exaggerated rehashes of 1930s/40s stuff
Really, this is a 4-door Eldorado/Toronado/Riviera. Just get a later one with the Oldsmobile 307, the best engine available in these.
The rear end was kind of an awful choice, but I appreciate the effort. My dad had a series of 80’s pseudo luxury land barges and eventually traded up to a real Caddy (Sedan Deville I believe). In retrospect I think that was a big deal for him at the time. I’ve got a soft spot for malaise era Caddy I guess, even the weird ones.
82 is 2 x 41. I approve.
The first Cadillac Seville was a handsome car, then it was restyled to look like it was hit in the back. The Imperial is much better looking. This time, Mr. Cheetham is right.
Yes, the first generation Seville really seemed like Cadillac had gotten the message and was finally moving away from what had devolved into their ‘cheap-pizza philosophy’ (it wasn’t very good but you sure got a lot of it!). That first gen seemed like an American interpretation of a German luxury car. It was handsome and form followed function without any added gimcracks or geehaws. Nice. Classy. Modern and suited to the times. I was really impressed. Yeah, I couldn’t afford one but it made Cadillac seem aspirational. Someday….
And then the second gen Seville came out and I knew Cadillac was doomed. They had reverted to form. It was just styled for the sake of styling. “Let’s dress up Joey from the gas station as the King of France!” He’ll look totally different and cool! It was tail-fins all over again. No value to the bustleback: all gimmick.
And that opinion formed before we knew of the debacle of lousy engines in GM’s premium brand.
76 Eldorado says, “…the 8-6-4 engine was not garbage the fuel injection system was. The 368ci Cadillac engine is a good engine with a carb.”
BUT: GM couldn’t be assed to either make sure that the deactivation system was reliable before releasing it, or failing that, just selling the car without it.
The message of the second generation Seville – GM thinks Americans will settle for flashy junk.
The Shah ordered a fleet of them in gold trim, at the time.
If it was good enough for that guy….wait, nevermind.
I don’t think that was this one, pretty sure it was the first gen Seville, which was also built in Iran
You might be right. There was a whole plant production line shift at the time, and a bunch of cars got scrapped. I forget which way it went.
Either way, I know that The Shaw ordered a fleet of gold ones from that era.
I wonder if the modern 4-6-8 AFM/DFM failures will mean the modern weirdo Turtle Back CTS-V coupes will be the next seville’s?
One of the few cars that you know what it is just at a glance. I’ll give it a pass for that.
I’m just gonna put this out there, anything Hot Wheels has 1:64’d can’t be a Worst Car. Not only did they do one of these Sevilles in period, they reissued it a few years ago, so you can get your razor edged bustleback fill for like $2! So far, it’s the only car covered that qualifies, although you get kind of close with the Proton Wira (since they’ve got the Saga).
Either way, a former uncle (former as in long ago divorced) had one of these in the early 90s, and at a minimum, it was way more interesting than the anodyne mass market stuff everyone else had.
I had a boss during a summer job in 1977 who had one of these in, let’s call it Banana Yellow. He had me take it to his dealership for an oil change and it was meh. But that yellow exterior and interior leather made me want to gag.
At the time, I thought the cutline of the trunk lid seemed stupid and inefficient. But a couple of years later, I bought a (used) ’71 Peugeot 504 which also had an odd trunk profile.
And the closest I came to owning a PET was a Commodore 64.
Upon further recollection, his was a ’76 or so–pre-bumble butt.
Which would be RWD and largely mechanically unrelated to the FWD car Torch is talking about.
My bad…
I still want that ’81 Imperial, and I want to throw a Viper engine in there with proper corresponding upgrades to the rest of the drivetrain and suspension. The tacky interior stuff needs to stay, though.
Dad had a Dodge Mirada of the same era, I think it was an ’82. Basically the same car with a better-looking rear. If you threw a Viper engine into that platform, it would shake itself to pieces before it left first gear. It was held together with Ritz crackers and duct tape from the factory. The body creaked and sagged when either one of those enormous doors opened, and we had to lift up on the handles to get them to close properly (in ’84). The plastics were made of biodegradable asbestos and the velour disintegrated after two years. It spent weeks in the shop while they tried to get the engine to run correctly.
That was Dad’s last Chrysler.
Perhaps your dad’s was tired and worn out by the time he could afford it. the 81 Cordoba LS that my grandpa bought new had none of those maladies even when it hit 100K miles. now that was saying a lot when you consider it ran the Lean Burn 318. Which is to say only slightly better than the Imperials attempt as Fuel injection. and neither were good.
Sadly, no. He bought it out of the repo lot with less than 20,000 miles, as I recall. He was super proud because it was inexpensive and it looked like it was in excellent shape.
That’s a prudent course of action around a PET 4016. I’ve got a pair of the PET 2001 Series and have found them to be considerably more docile.
Nah, it was a dumpy pile peppered with the idiotic baroque trim that Detroit considered luxury. Just because other Caddies were even more chintzy doesn’t exuse this turd.