Cadillac: Is bigger better?

[Jamie Smith #21103]

I have a 1981 SDV which to me is a mammoth car. Ofcourse being 30 years old I do not remember the days of the extra mammoth Cadillacs of the 50s 60s and 70s. With all the knowledge in this club and forum of Cadillacs from all years and eras I have one question. One that I know is a matter of opinion but I will ask anyways...
Do you think Cadillac made a good move by downsizing almost all models after 1976? Was that the starting mark of Cadillacs slight downslide during the early 80s or were the "new engines" to blame?

Just Curious

Jamie

[Richard Sills - CLC #936]

There is obviously no scientific answer to the question, but in my opinion, the problems were first attributable to the new engines, particularly the HT-4100 introduced in 1982.  

The initial downsizing in 1977 came as a visual shock to those who were used to the long, sleek Cadillacs of 1976 and before.  But most of us quickly got used to the smaller cars, and those of us who lived in cities found the trimmer dimensions had some advantages.  Most important, we quickly discovered that the 77-79 Cadillacs were great driving cars, with their powerful 425 cubic inch engines and Turbo-Hydramatic transmissions.  (One of the best Cadillacs I ever owned was a 1979 Fleetwood Brougham dElegance, with the 425-cubic-inch V-8 and fuel injection.)            

In 1980, the 77-79 body was slightly restyled, but the engine size in the deVille and Fleetwood models was reduced from 425 to 368 cubic inches.  The 8-6-4 introduced in 1981 was a clever innovation, and still used a good 368-cubic-inch V-8 engine as a base, but Cadillacs clientele had a hard time adjusting to the alternating cylinder modes.  And, apparently some cars had reliability problems with the mode adjustment, which did not help to increase customer confidence.  (I have been told that if an 8-6-4 proved troublesome, it is relatively easy to disconnect the mechanism that changed cylinder modes, so that you always had 368 cubic-inch V-8 power.)  

In 1982, Cadillac introduced the HT (for High Technology) 4100 engine, which got rid of the changing cylinder modes but had substantially less power, especially when installed in the big rear-wheel-drive Fleetwood Broughams.  Even worse, the reliability record of this engine was not good, and many long-time Cadillac owners deserted the marque as a result.

Cadillacs image problem was further compounded by the next round of downsizing and the "look alike" styling that started in 1985-86.  This was the era when Lincoln used a TV ad that showed a parking attendant becoming hopelessly confused by the Cadillacs, Buicks and Oldsmobiles that were very hard to tell apart.  It was quite a change from the "old days" when a Cadillac could be recognized from any distance.

During these troubled times, not only did Lincoln take advantage of Cadillacs problems, but also its foreign rivals solidified their foothold in the U.S. luxury car market.  Many long-time Cadillac owners went over to Mercedes-Benz and BMW. When Lexus and Infiniti entered the market in about 1990, there were even more choices for the type of buyer who used to gravitate toward Cadillac -- or for the buyers who gravitated away from Cadillac because of the problems of the 80s.

Fortunately, starting in the late 80s, Cadillac recognized and confronted its problems and got back on the track with cars that performed well and had some flair in the styling department.  Since then, the trend has been continuing upward --and although there are some very fine competitive products, in my view Cadillac has resurrected its reputation as "standard of the world".  

Richard Sills      

[Johnny]

Mr. Sills has quite accurately put the "down fall" of Cadillac in the 70s and 80s, it should be required reading for all Cadillac enthusiasts.

As Richard stated the 77-79 were really great riding cars, I had a 79 Coupe DeVille, and it was one of my favorite Cadillacs. Although the size of the cars were downsized, Cadillac advertised them as being roomier (leg and headroom). Most of the downsizing was done in length. The previous years cars had a lots of "wasted space"  I believe the 76s had about more then a foot of space between the grille and the radiator. This was greatly reduced to inches with the introduction  of the 77s.

Although Cadillac has made great stides in recapturing some of the luxury car market, helped greatly by their introduction of trucks into the line, in my opinion, they leave a lot to be desire in styling.  

[Jamie #21103]

I agree, that was an excellent explanation that Richard provided. Infact, I printed it out to save. I didnt realize that the interior room was even greater after 76. My grandmother had a 58, 63, 68, 71, 76, 81 diesel (that she kept for only 2 weeks!)and finally the 81 with the 8-6-4 that I got after she died and I always remember her saying that the 81s just werent the same as her previous cars. She never elaborated on that statement and I always figured that since she was a 75 year old 52" woman that it had to be the size difference not the power under the hood. The fact that while driving the 76 she broadsided a telephone truck and knocked it 30 feet into a field and stepped out of the car without a scratch even without wearing a seatbelt probably played a part in her insecurity with her new smaller Cadillac. Thank you both for shining light on that period of time.

Jamie

[Johnny]

[emember her saying that the 81s just werent the same as her previous cars. She never elaborated on that statement and I always figured that since she was a 75 year old 52" woman that it had to be the size difference not the power under the hood.]

Your grandmother must have been a very classy lady to drive Cadillacs.  Whenever I have driven or been in Cadillacs from the 50s and 60s, I always wondered how woman the size of your grandmother were able to handle those land yachts!  Sure they had power steering and power brakes, but have you ever driven one?  What an experience!  Compared to todays cars, they were like battleships, with their enormous size and weight.

I would suspect that besides the size, she might have been also referring to the materials used.  As time went by, more and more plastic was used in cars, not that same as all the chrome that was used in prior years.

[densie 20352]

> Your grandmother must have been a very classy lady to drive Cadillacs.  Whenever I have driven or been in Cadillacs from the 50s and 60s, I always wondered how woman the size of your grandmother were able to handle those land yachts!  Sure they had power steering and power brakes, but have you ever driven one?  What an experience!  Compared to todays cars, they were like battleships, with their enormous size and weight.

   I have to laugh.  Have you driven a new car lately?  They have almost no power steering, and they ride like trucks.  I saw an old man driving a new Mercury today, and I wondered how he managed to get it in and out of a parking space.

   Compared to my 2004, my 22-ft long, 7000# 76 Cadillac hearse is a piece of cake to drive.

-densie

[Todd Rothrauff]

Hello Jamie,

I also agree with Richards comments concerning the 1970s and 1980s Cadillacs.  However, lets not forget where this all began.  The first regulation of tailpipe emissions began with, (I think?) the 1967 model year, for the Peoples Republic of California, following in 1970 for the rest of us.  

As emissions regulations became more strict (in a very short period of time), drastic measures needed to be taken by the manufacturers to ensure compliance.  New engines with efficiency incorporated into overall design were still many years away.  So, in order to make the cut, existing products had to be modified to meet the standards.  These modifications resulted much less power.

But, car buyers of that era loved big, heavy cars.  In order to keep these cars performing, manufacturers had to increase displacement.  This is why Cadillacs had 500s, Trans Ams had 455s, Chevys had 454s, etc.

Then, along came 1975, and the beginnning of the infamous CAFE regulations, (brought to you by the same group that had that wonderful stroke of genius known as the 55 mph speed limit).  Now, not only did manufacturers have to deal with emissions, they also were saddled with rather strict fleet fuel economy standards, (I think the initial regulation mandated something like a 33percent increase in the fleet average for the first 5 years, although Im not 100percent sure).  The only way to do this with the technology of the day was to lose the big engines and reduce weight.

And so, let the dieting begin:  Cadillac went to 425 cubes along with a smaller body, Trans Ams now had a maximum of 400 CID, Lincoln managed to hold on to its big Town Car (if only with 400 CID V-8) until 1980 when the downsized models were introduced, Chrysler lost its 440 New Yorker after 1978, etc.

The HT4100 of 1982 was very significant in that it was the first all new product that had efficiency as part of the design.  While, some may question how well this design was executed, it wasnt a bad first attempt given the era.  My 1984 Coupe de Ville, while not nearly as powerful as my 1965 Deville Convertible, was cleaner burning and got 20 mpg on the highway.  And, it was still a Cadillac (beautiful styling inside and out, plush, quiet interior, great riding).

I view the downsizing era of the late 1970s as more of an "unfunded mandate" rather than a "decision."  And in the 30 years that have passed since then, manufacturers have gone from making-the-best-of-it to World Class (a majority of new Cadillacs run a 14 second quarter mile, handle great, stop great, and get good mileage, all while being low emissions vehicles).  

Thanks for listening,

Todd

[Mike #19861]

 Yes, Richard gave a very good anology of the times from the 70s to the 90s.

 But one thing has to be considered here. GM made the decision to downsize its full sized cars in 1973, before the first oil embargo. So this predates any decisions that may have been influenced by CAFE and so on. Given lead times of about 5 years for the genesis of a new car to the actial release, this decision must have been made no later than 1972.

 As it turned out, GM had an insight that no one else had. They realized that the cars had become too big and some sort of return to rationality was needed.  The cars were a huge sales success with the 1979 models breaking all previous sales records. This made the competition sit up and notice. Ford and Chrysler had indeed caught wind of GMs downsizing program and hedged their bets with rebadged midsized cars. Ford and Chrysler were not able to release true downsizing until the 1979 model year.

 The 1977-79 GM cars were good cars. All of them. I have driven many examples or each marque from this era. They had the solid feel of their 1976 forebears, but were much more driveable. I have also driven many examples of the 1976 models. They were huge, but solid and substantial. Right from the Chevrolets to the Cadillacs.

 The 1977-79 Cadillacs in many ways were the best cars Cadillac made in many years. The 425 was powerful and virtually bulletproof. They did not sacrifice any room from the 1976 models (save for perhaps shoulder room).

 The 1980 models were more than facelifts. They were lightened considerably again. Sheetmetal was not interchangible from the 1979 models. The Cadillacs did look a bit more substantial, but they lost the feel due to the lightening. These cars do feel lighter and less solid. The 368 output was not close to what the 425 had been, and by many accounts was not as economical. It was still a good mechanically sound engine, though.

 Also, during this era, Cadillac became a leader in technology, particularly in electronics. They were the first to introduce the new generation of digital self diagnostic engine controls. A very significant development that has never been fully recognised. It is often overshadowed by the V-864 debacle, and further the HT4100. Indeed Cadillac lost its way with the introduction of the much maligned, and desevedly so, 1985 models, and the following 1986 Eldorados. This was the Roger Smith era, and he damaged GM so much so that they are just now recovering from it. During the 80s there would be so much that influenced the auto industry, from social and political demands to changing tastes of the buyer. In fact, GM spent so much money in the early to mid 80s releasing totally new models, that it makes todays renaissance pales by comparison. Its just too bad that much of this was quite misdirected.

  Mike

[Johnny]

[I have to laugh. Have you driven a new car lately? They have almost no power steering, and they ride like trucks. I saw an old man driving a new Mercury today, and I wondered how he managed to get it in and out of a parking space.

Compared to my 2004, my 22-ft long, 7000# 76 Cadillac hearse is a piece of cake to drive.]

When I made that post, I was thinking more of the cars of the 50s and early 60s, and I was referring to mostly the large size and bulbous style.  I will agree with you that the power steering today isnt the same as years gone by.  I think thats because people want the "European" feel of a car.

[Todd Rothrauff]

Hello Mike,

Sorry about the subject line fragment.  My title was supposed to be "Downsizing was not a decision."  I have noticed that some writers to this forum are able to post subject lines that are very long.  I, for some reason which eludes me presently, am restricted on the number of characters I can use.  If anyone can shed some light on this subject, I would appreciate it.

Anyways, I selected that title for my post to illlustrate the fact that this decision didnt happen by itself.  I believe you are correct when you say GM must have had some insight that no one else had.  I have to wonder just what this insight really was.  My guess is that, given the anti-automobile climate of the time, GM execs might have been trying to anticipate future Federal Government restrictions.  Knowing that any additional restrictions would not be compatible with the current large, heavy passenger car, a diet would be necessary for future designs.

I also agree with you concerning 1970s cars.  Like I said in other posts on this forum, I would trade my 1996 Mark VIII for a 1977/78 Eldorado in a heartbeat.  I think they are beautiful, comfortable cars with an acceptable level of performance.  I work at a Ford dealer, and my shop foreman agrees with me.  When I asked his thoughts concerning  1970s Lincolns and 1970s Cadillac, his response was that the GM products were much better cars.

Todd

[Porter 21919]

Todd,

You cant use quotation marks or the subject title gets cut up.

Porter

[Robert Koch 21150]

One other thing the government mandated that worked out to our advantage. Emissions controls were required to meet specs for 100K miles. This is the point where most engines pre-1980 were shot and in need of a rebuild. They wouldnt come close to meeting specs, they would be burning too much oil. This meant that engines had to last longer overall.
My old Cavalier Wagon, a 1985, met specs right up until I sold it at 200K. This with the catalytic converter completely hollow!
I was having some engine trouble and someone suggested checking the cat for blockage. Just the opposite. It provided NO back pressure. Auto Zone had it in stock for $85. That car now has 237K and just passed again. It still doesnt burn oil (quart every 1800) much.
Trust me, the "gummint" had no intentions of this working in our favor! The market figured out what had to be done and we all benefited.

[JIM CLC # 15000]

02-25-05
TODD, I know the box for the subjet is short, but just continue to type.
Good Luck, There is a limit, Jim

[Todd Rothrauff]

Porter,

I was not aware of that.  Thanks for the info.

Todd

[jeffrey klinner clc 19166]

Being in my lower thirties, I can attest to the size of the cars and the downsizing at the time.  Bigger was always better!  My first memory of a cadillac was my grandmothers 1973 sedan de ville.  That was one big car.  I also recall shrieking with delight Christmas of 77 when the garage door opened to find a new 78 sedan de ville.   I will have to agree with everyone else, those cars were some of the best driving running handling cadillacs built.  I currently own a 78 Eldorado Biarritz and love the engine.  My family was very much a cadillac family.  They bought the cars no matter what the size.  I agree with the gentlemens remark about the emission controls and other items.  However, there was much waste in the body of the 70s cadillacs.  Given the fact the 77 body essentially ran until 92 should be a great testament to that styling change.  Size does matter.  Down sizing at that point didnt choke cadillac.  Crappy engines in the 80s and god awful FWD cars that looked a like almost put us under.  Thank heavens we are all the better for those stupid actions.

[Mike #19861]

 Actually, emissios sytems and the engines had to remain certifiable for 50,000 miles. And, the companies had to warranty them for this long if any part of the emissions system went out. That is also the reason why they went to stainless exhaust systems. Since the mild steel systems could not last that long, the manufacturers were having to replac systems under warranty after the normal warranty period expired.

 But with improved design and manufacturing methods, as well as the electronic controls, have made engines last much longer and run cleaner. The electronics were a result of the stricter requirements, supposedly conflicitng standards like emissions and fuel economy being tightened spelled the end of the carburetor.  The systems could compensate for wear where carburetors cannot.

 Impending regulations, fuel costs going through the roof, a shift in customer tastes all led to the massive changes we saw in the 80s on the basic car. The first round of downsizing led to some of the best cars GM ever made, but subsequent rounds of downsizing went too far. For example, the 1979-85 Eldorados were the best selling of the breed. Ever. After the downsizing in 1986, sales dropped by more than 60percent never to recover. Toronado sales went into the toilet and led to the discontinuation of the model after 1990. Even a rename and restyle could not save it.

 My 1985 Caprice is about as bulletproof a car ever made.Its a result of the first round of downsizing, then the further refinements made for the 1980 model year. The car is relatively light, about 3600 lbs, so the 145 HP LG4 305 can give decent performance and still return over 30 mpg.It now has 215,000km on it and it is as sound and solid as it ever was. I have had a couple of mid 70s Chevs, a 1975 Impala and a 1976 Bel Air. They were both very good cars, but I feel the Caprice is even better.

  Mike

[Ed Dougher]

I also have to agree that the first round of downsizing was not a problem.  Im fortunate to own a 79 CDV, and the car is an absolute pleasure to drive!  The smoothness, power, and the way that the car never seems to breathe hard stand in stark contrast to an 88 Brougham I owned that couldnt get out of its own way no matter how many times it downshifted.  It always amazes me how tight the cars turning circle is compared with my 67 DeVille convertible.  In my opinion, the 77 to 79 cars were also good looking.  After the initial shock of the downsizing, they were well received by the public, as can be heard in songs from the time like Meatloafs Two Out of Three Aint Bad.

Something that I think often gets overlooked is what a shock it must have been when the 1961 models were introduced on the heels of the 59s and 60s.  If youve ever parked a 61 or 62 car next to a 77 - 79, you may have noticed that theyre just about the same size.

On the other hand, I think the 85 downsizing and the 86 redesign of the Eldo were disastrous - not to mention the negative attention the Cavalier, uh Cimmaron was getting.  The Hitch&Tow 4100 notwithstanding, those cars were just too small to have the presence - bearing - whatever you want to call it - that a Cadillac should have.  They always remind me of a hysterically funny photo I once saw of Shaq sitting in, and towering above a Miata.  He looks like a kid in a pedal car.

[David #19063]

Ed,

The 56 62 is 214.9" & 221.9".

The 56 Fleetwood 60 is 225.9".

The 60 DeVille is 225".

The 62 Park Avenue & Town Sedan is 215".

The 62 DeVille is 222".

The 68 DeVille is 224.7".

The 68 Brougham is 228.2".

The 70 DeVille is also 225".

The 76 DeVille is 231"

The 76 Brougham is 234".

The 77 DeVille is 221.2"

The 84 DeVille is 221.0"

The 84 Brougham is 221".

The 88 DeVille is 202.3"

The 88 Brougham is 221"

The 94 Fleetwood Brougham is 225.0".

The 96 DeVille is 209.7"

The 2000+ DeVilles are shorter and the Sevilles even less.

David