Adam, your analysis is spot on. During this period I was employed by a elderly couple who owned both the this Cadillac and a Mark 6. I had multiple opportunities to ride in both of them. The ride in the Mark 6 made the Cadillac feel like an Impala. Not kidding, it was a stark difference. Gotta love the way all three manufacturers must have conspired with one another to come up with nearly exact horsepower and torque figures.
So the "Cimmaron", built out of the J-body with more soundproofing and a plusher interior, but mechanically the same as a Chevy Cavalier, wasn't the only instance of Cadillac "badge-engineering" a lesser GM model? As for that use of the Olds diesel engine...in hindsight, stupid.
Cars to this day still have very similar figures across brands. It's because as a car company you're gonna spend as little money as possible to get a step up on the next guy. No need to bankrupt the company to have double the power of the next guys car when you can just spend a little bit to have 5 more HP than him.
I turned eleven years old in December 1980, and many of the 60s and 70s luxury cars were still actively on the road. I remember the Cadillac TV commercials for the V-8-6-4 technology and thought the concept was cool; interesting to learn the practical application was not as "cool". I absolutely loved the Seville rear end of the day (and a logical design evolution from the 1976 original), and thought the "new" Imperial design was modern, slightly "futuristic" and awesome. A family friend had a 1978 Mark V, and I got the chance to ride in that several times as a kid, my first real exposure to a high-end luxury vehicle. Absolutely awesome.
I’m a about 10 yrs younger and never had a chance to experience these America luxury cars. By 1990, anyone who had the means drove German and even Lexus/Infiniti. These American luxury cars were a rare sighting and they always seems so big and boxy/ancient looking in comparison.
Also to add, I never realized Chrysler was in the same leaque as or competed wCadillac or Lincoln. I always thought they were in line w Buick/mercury - at least that was my perception from the 90s.
@@Wasabi9111 These early 80's American luxury cars were flawed as was mentioned in the video. They simply had issues that shortened their life spans. Their market share continued to decline in the 80's while the Germans continued to grow. To your point, the introduction of the Lexus/Infiniti brands in the early 90's was, in my opinion, the last of the coffin nails Before one could argue how much expensive the Germans cars were ...not with the Lexus/Infiniti intros you had cars at the same price as the Americans and were much better built
@@turnne GM had a good thing going - in the right direction no less - with the original Seville. It was leaner and less ornate - a real rival for the Germans. They ruined it though - many of the older customers thought that the most expensive Caddy should be bigger and fancier like their other models - so in a panic, they did. Essentially killed the brand in the long run and the Japanese rolled over them in the 90's.
@@wincrasher2007 In the 70's GM did have a lot of market share..I agree with you However..there was a lot more to the those German sedans than the lack of chrome and smaller size. The driving experience was night and day different The 1980 Seville was definitely a larger and more ornate and even less " international". However...the weak engines, poor build quality and the fact that the market was moving more upscale were coffin nails. I grew in Dallas and at the time of the early 80's the Mercedes dealers were cashing in. It was the "car to have" for the affluent people A few things I have never understood from then and shortly after 1. Why didnt GM etc build more upscale cars to go after Mercedes and try to maintain their brand image and then 2. Why didnt GM/Ford react more aggressively when Lexus came onto the scene and was selling cars( like hotcakes) that were clearly better at the Cadillac/Lincoln prices The 80's and 90's were like a 1,2 punch for the American luxury car makers Market share kept dropping, they put their cars in every rental car fleet it kept getting worse and worse
Great video! What is missing in the discussion is the fact that the Imperial was the only one of the three that was hand-built: the way the trunk closed, the alignment of the doors, the quality of the seat stitching and other small joys are continual rewards of owning this remarkable car.
@@dansmusic5749 "Iacocca Imperials" are actually Chrysler Imperials '81-'83 and were hand-built. The '55-'75 Imperials were NOT Chryslers and were hand-built in that they had hand-fitted body panels, interiors, etc and every car was driven and inspected prior to delivery. For low-volumn cars like the Imperials, hand-fittment and assembly not only produces a superior product, but avoids the excrutiating costs of jigs, dies and other expensive manufacturing stuff that require huge sales numbers to ammortize.
@@bobtepedino5661 Very interesting. I wish you would say how you know this. I do think Imperials are very fine cars. I didn't used to think so, when I was young, because Chrysler products, back then, were not known for high-quality bodies. But, they were still good cars.
Great info Adam! It would seem that the Lincoln was the least compromised mechanically. It would have been a tough pill to swallow when told that your expensive luxury car can be"fixed" by putting a carburetor on it or to disable your v8-6-4 feature (that the salesperson probably touted as the best thing since sliced bread). That said, the Seville was always my favorite of the period, of course I was 11. Thank you for what you do!
Absolutely, and i'm a GM guy. The Cadillac was front wheel drive. And while that may have been regarded as avant-garde, it just doesn't belong in this class of car. The Chrysler has a three-speed were the others had a four-speed automatic. It also had a live rear axle with leaf springs, and the same platform as a Cordoba 2, or a Dodge Mirada. Has to be the Lincoln. Easy choice.
Lot of folks disabled the cylinder deactivation feature on the Cadillac . Wasn't a bad engine in V8 only mode . That generation of Seville was very elegant. The 368 cid engine was the last of the 472 , 500 , 425 block .
The format is fine and will be a nice compliment to your regular in person car reviews with the actual car. Your knowledge, experience and research is why I watch. Cheers 🇨🇦
Adam,Great comparison………I love all three. People would knock the Cadillac 8-6-4. An older Cadillac tech told me years ago the 8-6-4 as it was intended was horrible however just unplug the 6-8 relays and use as an 8 it should run 300k. I owned one of these Lincoln’s and I miss it…..handling F- . Cadillacs always handled better. The Seville and imperial were just Avant-garde cool and different from all other cars. It’s a love it or hate it opinion.
I had the Seville for 30 minutes. Bought it from a neighbor in SW Fl. Drove it 1/4 mile to a gas station, someone asked if i wanted to sell it, and offered me twice what i had just paid. Bye bye seville
Yes, I definitely like this format. I used to really enjoy reading the road tests comparing various large American sedans and I own several old publications from the 70’s and 80’s such as “Road Test”, “Motor Trend”, “Car & Driver”, “Consumer Reports” etc. Many of these publications are still in print but I haven’t looked at any for almost a decade as the American automobile has declined to the point that there really isn’t anything of interest left to read about. By and large they never were fans of large soft luxury models but it is kind of fun to read their scathing remarks. Back in the day if they didn’t approve of a car that would be the one I would want. They seem to think everything including large luxury sedans should be track ready and that is just so unpractical and ridiculous!
I had an 84 Seville (same body as the 81), Loved it! The Styling, interior all of it. It was plush and luxurious. It was a marshmallow as far as power but everything was in those years too. A friend had the Imperial and my boss had the Mark 6. The tires and wheels were too small for the Mark 6 for my taste. The Imperial was pretty. To do it all over again I would still pick the Seville.
I agree with you on the styling of the Seville and the Imperial. I was really surprised that Chrysler had echoed the 1980 Seville's awkward-looking "bustle back" when they introduced the Imperial for 1981 with that marked extension of the Imperial's C-pillar line to suggest a Seville-like bustle. They must have designed the exterior of the 1981 Imperial before the 1980 Seville's sales figures were in.
My father loved Cadillac's as he grew up poor , everyone was poor... but he always admired Cadillac as a young man. He bought one of these diesels in 82. It was slow. loud and smoked badly. Never really had many issues with it but you had to plug in a block heater on cold nights. Pops didn't keep it long and sold it for a good price and bought a 6.0 to replace it. He was much happier with the old push rod gas motor. I felt the late 70s were better cars however, the DeVilles that is. RIP Pops.
I agree that the Imperial had the nicest exterior styling, but the interior looked cheaper than the Cadillac. The Seville styling, to me anyway, would have been OK without the bustle-back. The Eldorado didn't have it and had decent looks and proportions.
Hey Adam, thanks for the trip back to 1981. I remember that all the car companies put a lot of time & money into the advertising, the commercials of the time were great!!! I'd have to go with the Continental Mark Vl, it had the best engine & the ride was smooth & comfortable!!! Thanks for sharing this great video!!! 👍👍
The fireside chats from the porch are enjoyable because you’re such a natural speaker. I’d suggest a hybrid between the front porch and this new format. Go back to the porch but with many more visuals. I also don’t think you need the music. Your stories are powerful enough to carry it. But it’s early days and it’s good to try new things and find your own comfort zone. 👍
I agree with this also. Perhaps since this is the first time using the new format, it appears less smooth than the originals porch and field chats and driveway reviews. But still well done. I think you do well regardless of format, but the originals have been great, imo.
Adam, your channel keeps getting better and better. I hope you continue to do other years in this format. I'd love to see the last year of the "land yachts", 1978, with the Eldorado, Mark V and New Yorker.
My buddy had an 82 Cadillac Sedan Deville with the Buick 4.1 liter V6 and a hair over 90K miles on the original engine. When I was done tuning it that little V6 was pretty decent and would actually squeal the rear tire out on full throttle and gave decent power all the way up to about 70 MPH after which it tailed off a bit. The trick with these engines was to make sure the base timing was set to factory specs or a little over, the secondary's were opening properly and replacing the restrictive pellet catalytic converter. Those changes plus a tune up really woke this little V6 up. It was also interesting to note this V6 used a higher volume oil pump as in the turbo 3.8, had upgraded head gaskets and used a beefier rolled filet crank as with the turbo 3.8. With that thought I would pick the Seville with this engine tied to the equally reliable 325 transmission in the lighter Seville body if I was forced to choose.
I was a kid when the Seville came out, and I recall being in awe, perhaps obsessed by it. It seemed so special, particularly compared to my family’s Subarus. It’s rather polarizing but I just love it still!
Missing the view of the pond with the occasional waterfowl side bar commentary. Your more personal delivery approach is one of your strongpoints in my opinion. You’re a wealth of knowledge Adam, thank you for sharing your passion.
I was in the 9th grade in 1980-81 and recall these cars and the commercials for them as well. We were shopping for a new car for my brother....a 1981 Plymouth TC3 at our local Chrysler Plymouth dealer. In the showroom, a new Imperial in ice blue with a dark blue Mark Cross leather interior. I recall sitting in that car while my brother and Dad were negotiating the purchase on the Plymouth. I thought who would purchase this car would be a very lucky person. The Imperial shared showroom space with the new K cars. The TC3 we purchased was a graphic red with a 1.7 liter VW sourced four cylinder...and after 5 years, we ended up selling it after having problem after problem with it. The economics of the time were challenging...high inflation and interest rates....cars that struggled to perform and had questionable quality and a feeling of when will this end. The following year, GM had the new F bodies for the Firebird and Trans Am....the 5.0 Mustang was introduced and seemed to point to the end of the malaise era. Reading the new car previews for 1982 and 83, it seemed there were more choices and better performance...and having got my license in 81, it was encouraging to see better choices during the remainder of the 1980s. I do recall Lincoln embracing the bustle back design with a Continental four door in 1982 that was based on the Fox Platform.
Love this new format Adam. I found your end analysis very spot on as well regarding the best bits from each of the three. Always loved the styling of the Imperial and the dashboard. Hoping someday there will be a market niche for the 2dr personal luxury car again, although it would probably have 20" wheels & offer 4WD but still. Cheers!
I knew a guy who had a 1981 Imperial parked behind his house. He was quite angry that he couldn't get the parts to repair it, and had parked it in 1983.
You are fresh whiff of UA-cam air. No hype, no click bait. Your knowledge makes me wonder if you are the automotive version of Data the Android. Great channel.
Great video and format. Very well documented and presented. Your analysis is spot on regarding combining the Lincoln ride and GM engineering to apply in the Chrysler J-body Imperials, which are much more aerodynamic and were actually used briefly in NASCAR. Sadly, primitive throttle-body EFI computer technology and questionable engine choices in the Cadillac, quickly made these cars problematic. They can also be a nightmare to pass the (1976-on) California Emissions test as replacement parts are long gone. Though more susceptible to rust, the Imperials had the best initial build quality of the three, using thicker gauge steel and a more elaborate paint application. Finding a well-cared-for model today is very difficult.
The Cadillac. Because I like its style best. The Chrysler looks a little to weird, expecially the long overhangs (or too short wheel base), and the Lincoln just looks outdated, like a smaller version of the 70s models. (Of course, in comparison to todays cars, all 3 looks fine an remind me at the sad loss of unique US-Car styling..) Funny, that the "malaise aera" brought such a beautiful (exterior und interior) design. Looking to all theese trucks on the road, we have a new malaise aera today!
I like your new format. I enjoy your explanation of the automobiles and how you bring note to the styling ques and options available at the time. I appreciate how you focus on primarily the luxury and unique autos of the pre 1990 years. I feel those were the years when those autos were truly works of art.
OMG I use to love the Seville Diesel I was young when we had one I use to love that rattling of the engine and he's right you couldn't hear it from the inside, but it was my favorite car I loved it!!!
I had 3 great aunt's that each owned one of these. My personal favorite was the Imperial. It looked so futuristic to my 8 year old self. The back seat of the Imperial was so comfy.
I was never a fan of the bustle-back but I think I'd have the Cadillac over the other two. At least I wouldn't have to look at the bustle back while I was driving it so the styling is someone else's problem at that point.
That 368 was also in the Deville, which was better than any of these three. So disable the cylinder deactivation and you’d have a nice car. One of my favorite late 70’s cruisers was a ’78 Deville with that beautiful 425 engine. Smooth, dependable, and supremely comfortable. Loved that car !!
Thanks Adam for another really good video. I like this format as well. I love the Imperial, but they seemed to have to many problems and the Cadillac, to me, looked like someone stepped on the back and they never fixed it. I think the 82 to 87 Lincoln Continental had a much nicer application of the bustle-back. Then they ruined the car in 88. I would have chosen a Mark VI Coupe on the shorter wheelbase. All classy automobiles with different ideas on comfort and luxury. Love the velour in the Lincolns and the seating in the Imperial, cloth or leather.
My grandfather was a cardiologist. He drove Buicks because he thought Cadillacs were too ostentatious but my grandmother did drive Cadillacs. My grandfather would buy two new cars every two years . When they went to the showroom to view the new Seville, my grandmother was driving the previous generation Seville at the time, she said that was the most hideous car she'd ever seen! She decided to keep the Seville she was driving until the vehicle was restyled.
My father owned and drove the big Lincolns from the early/ mid 70s. He toyed with getting a new Seville in '76 or '77 and disliked the Mk V with an apparent passion. He didn't seem to notice the Imperial that I ever recognized and finally by the late 80s and early 90s, he gave up all together on the luxury brands. He and my mother bought a brand new Saturn in '90. She drove it until she couldn't drive anymore after he died a very short time after they bought it. They're both gone now (my parents) but I still think of them everyday. :)
I would have compared the 1982 Lincoln Continental rather than the Mark VI to the Seville and Imperial as it had the same rear end styling that was all the rage in the early 80's. (The 1982 Lincoln Continental should have been called Versailles but the first version bombed so they took the Lincoln Continental name for the Versailles replacement and made the Lincoln Continental the Town Car (which was always an interior trim option)).
My neighbor growing up bought a new Caddy every two years. Usually DeVilles and then Fleetwoods. One year he bought a Seville with the square trunk. He got rid of it quickly. Said it was too small. I thought it was beautiful👍
Over the years I had two outta the three, absolutely hated the Seville the mark vi was a decent runner but lacked quality control , I always wanted an imperial and I will find one before I kick the bucket
I personally liked the bussell back design but at the time I had this Seville I was a member of a local Cadillac club and was told it was not a real Cadillac with that ass end and also to add the car had some weird electrical problems @@gordonborsboom7460
I’m currently in the market to buy either a Lincoln Mark V (Diamond Jubilee Edition) or the Mark VI (because it gets much better gas mileage). I absolutely LOVE these cars. I think they’re some of the prettiest luxury cars ever built. I also like the last version of the big Eldorado, preferably the 77 or 78, as I like that they moved the taillights back into the rear quarter panel tail fins. I like the Lincoln Mark VII as well, but its interior looked more like something I’d expect to see in a Thunderbird than Lincoln’s top luxury car. While it certainly wasn’t ugly, it lacked the panache of the cars that proceeded it. That’s about the time that the big three automakers started replacing quality materials with cheap plastic. Nobody however, did that more than GM. What’s even worse is that the quality of the plastic that GM used was hideous. The sun used to rot away the door panels as well as all the other plastics used to hide the vehicle structure elements. After about 4 years of sitting in the sun, it was common to be able to chip chunks of rotted plastic off these poorly made panels. And the cheaper the car was, the more plastic it was swaddled with, with the Chevette being the absolute worst.
Rare Classic Cars has become my favorite car channel. Adam, your knowledge and presentation are first rate. I hope you will do a feature on the M-body 1982-1989 Chrysler Fifth Avenue. They were very popular in their day but have all but disappeared now.
My cousin crashed into a moose in a Seville of that era. It literally spilt the car into 2 halves at the B pillar. She lived. I worked at a Chrysler dealership in '86. I had the pleasure of applying the 'TSB' to an '83 Imperial. Crazy stuff. The kit to 'fix' drivability on the Imperial involved a pallet of parts including gas tank, fuel pump, carburetor and on and on. Yea, the thing(TSB kit) arrived LTL freight on a pallet. Remove fuel injection, install corporate carburetor system. Funny, I still remember the special tool kits for working on the pressure=drip fuel injection system for Imperial. It included a clear air intake cover so you could observe the drip. So funny. So way long gone. I think the Imperial injection system on the 318 yielded maybe, just maybe 95Hp? Not sure of that.
Very accurate telling of three top luxury automobiles. The styling of the Imperial was, and still is, beautiful. The styling of the Seville grew on me in time. The Mark VI was just too blocky. I was surprised that you didn't pick the Mark VI as your outright choice. As a side note, the 'wood trim' in all three was laughable, but the Imperial's was, by far, the worst. I love the comparison format. Nice job Adam!
I would choose the Cadillac Seville Elegante in the 2 tone Maroon Leather interior and the 8,6,4 V8 engine or the 4.1 V6. When that design came out I fell in love with it. I just adored the throwback to the ‘40s & ‘30s with that ‘Bustle Back’ styling. It’s pretty much a love it or hate it design. I prefer 4 Doors and the Imperial either didn’t come as a 4 Door or didn’t carry it off. I can’t remember which. I would gladly own one today. My next door neighbor had the Eldorado w/V8,6,4 and he hated it. If it proved problematic I would disable the Cylinder reduction feature.
These were "old guy cars" when they were new, especially the Seville. My Dad carpooled to work with an older Gentleman during this time period who had the Seville. I remember that it had a v6 motor, very quiet and smooth, but pretty slow. My Dad had a '70 Impala with the 400 small block at the time. Dad liked power in his cars, said he didn't have the patience to drive a Seville
A very good overview as always, Adam! I have extensive driving and maintenance experience of two Mark VIs Signature Series sedans, a very early production '80 with the 351, and an '81 with the 302. Both were beautifully made, feature laden cars which a riding and driving experience much improved over the '77 Continental Town Car they replaced. Being a very early production '80, it had some nagging teething problems that required a few trips to the dealer to fix. But that 351 (CA car) would burn a little rubber if you were so inclined! By comparison, the '81 rode and handled as well but felt only adequately powered. The new 4-speed AOD on both cars did hunt a bit around 40 MPH, but the mileage increase was certainly worth the difference. The bugs had been worked out by then and the '81 was very reliable. At the time, a work friend bought a new '81 Coupe de Ville with the V-8-6-4 and it was so problematic replaced it in three months with a Pontiac. I haven't much experience with the Imperial -- they were non-existent where I lived. I really prefer the styling of the Imperial over the Cadillac -- but I generally was/am not a fan of the bustle back style.
I had to laugh at the 40 mph AOD hunt!. Outside of primitive, but generally reliable, TBI on the motor, the AOD was the only sorta Achilles heel on the otherwise bullet proof Panther Mark VI. Definitely agree the handling was much improved over the '70s Lincolns, without compromising the great ride they were known for. This upload makes much of the controversial styling of the Seville and the Imperial, but the Mark VI always struck me as a little ridiculous with the carryover spare tire hump, oval opera windows, gilled fenders (with optional brightwork edges!), and covered headlights, which were all considered design excess by 1980. The upmarket trim Mark VI interiors were the best of all three of these cars.
I still love the looks of the Cadillac Seville, bustle-rump and all. Now I know that the Seville had trim options but the design was fully realized only in the Seville Elegante. Without the two-tone paint separated by the chrome bodyside spear, the second generation Seville simply didn't look right. I do remember seeing a mono-tone standard Seville with the Elegante bodyside spear, must have been an option to help base models look "normal", lol. Otherwise, gimme a Mark VI Signature Series 4-door!
1981 was a great year for me. Was just becoming car aware. A new Ford LTD Crown Victoria 2 door was gracing our garage while kid across the streets parents got a VW Rabbit diesel. World's apart those two. Noise and soot and 'German Engineering' became synonymous to me, while Detroit Iron became quiet and soft riding with plenty of chrome outside. The bustleback Seville means Ally Sheedys character in the Breakfast Club to me. The Mark VI means 'successful accountant' whereas the Mark V meant 'elegant rogue' as the car mags put it. The Imperial was one of the first non C3 Corvette / non Trans Am cars that made my young head turn and ask pop "what was that". Pity they messed up a 318/Torqueflite application. That is not easily done after all. Love it when Detroit actually tries to make something glitzy and different. Waiting in vain for the next one?
This was informative and it would be a hard choice to make. You should do more of these comparisons. I like the images and the effort put into this video. Thank you
Another good review. The real problem that each of these models faced was that by 1981, they really weren't seen as aspirational outside of the mid-west rustbelt states and maybe some southern states. The idea of 'Luxury' had moved on and by this time would have included not just plushiness and a smooth ride, but also more driver oriented attributes such as road holding, responsiveness build quality and, the big one, engineering. Under the flashy sheet metal there was nothing really special about these cars. Magazines like Car and Driver, Road&Track etc. always pointed that out - most often in entertaining ways.
“Sybaritic”: I had to look that one up. That sounds like something you’d hear on JEOPARDY as in, “The answer is, Adjective derived from an ancient Greek city in Italy whose citizens were famous for relishing luxury.” Nice video.
The local Cadillac dealership had trouble with young people stealing the hood ornaments from the new cars. They had to remove them from the cars until someone would purchase the cars. This was back when the dealership was in the downtown area.
I like the design of the Seville, but have never driven it. In the late 1990's I regularly drove an armored(!) 1981 Fleetwood limousine, with a V8-6-4 engine, with the technology switched off. It handled the extra weight beautifully and was in no way slow. After a change og ownership the technology was returned to the original V8-6-4 by a skilled Lexus mechanic. A friend of ours still owns his 1981 Imperial, which - as stated - has been converted to carburator. I drove it in 2018. It rides like any car, which is not driven very often. The car is mint with the interior in beautiful condition. I have driven a handfull of Lincolns from the 1980's, starting with a Town Car from 1981. They are smooth and quiet, but other than that "boxes on wheels". You feel you sit in a down-size car with up-size seats. My love for Lincoln didn't return untill 1990 with the introduction of the new Town Car. The 1980's was generally an undesirable decade for fans of US luxury cars.
This one is easy. I’d take the Lincoln based on its ride and reliability. That engine was extremely reliable, being practically fault for during the entire life of the car. You may think it’s boxy, but I for one, love the looks, especially with the coupe. In the dark maroon color, there’s very few cars that look better, including stuff being made today. My Mark VI would be a maroon coupe with the velour interior, electronic dashboard with trip computer, sunroof, and Ford’s keyless entry code system at the top of the door, just above the door handle. As a second choice, I’d take the Imperial as long as it had gone through the conversion process. Last is the Cadillac, which was a sad follow-on to the gorgeous Seville that proceeded it. That was a massive setback to the Seville nameplate. And that’s so typical of GM, who notoriously screws up the design of their cars, especially those they managed to get right the first time around. Three additional cars GM came out with that were perfect in their very first design are the Buick Riviera, the Olds Tornado with it’s stunning blade fenders, and the incredible Cadillac Eldorado with it’s hidden headlights and sharp rear quarter panels ended into the taillights. Those three cars are probably the finest designs ever seen on a first released production car. And with just a few model years, GM managed to royally screw all three up, especially with the 1972 Tornado, which has one of the ugliest front ends of any large car GM ever built. How GM managed to go from the 1966 model into the 1972 model without anyone stopping the design studio from making such a catastrophic mistake is one of the auto industry’s biggest mysteries.
Saw a _lot_ of that body-style Seville. They were very popular in that era. What sticks in memory is the Imperial supposedly being offered with a lifetime warranty. Those were Chrysler's dark days.
I always loved the bustleback Seville. I wanted to replace the back seat with one from a Olds Custom Cruiser wagon so it would fold down and make the trunk into a sleeper/camper. Unfortunately never got around to it.
I was 15 in 1981 when the Seville came out with the "buffle back" and I thought it looked kind of weird at first. The fact that my dad liked it was a VERY BAD SIGN... But after a while I started to like it. The car itself was a pathetic pile of GM cost cutting, but the FWD design was actually quite good. I've never driven or even ridden in one of these, but I honestly think that this is a car that in good shape today should be a collectors item due to the fact that it was so unique. Lincoln copied the design with the '82 Continental and theirs wasn't quite as special, you could tell it was really a Ford Fairmont with the rear end sculpted to look vaguely like the Seville. Great video!
I come from the unique position of owning or having owned all of these. I had a light gold 1981 Seville with the 468. I would say it was a great looking car, rode and handled well, was well equipped and finished. But the engine would cut out sometimes and you always felt like something was about to go wrong. These days I would like a two tone 1980 Elegante with the standard 6 litre. I have owned a Mark VI Bill Blass coupe. It drove extremely well and I would rate it better than the Seville all things considered. I like the styling but it is a little boxy - the main issue being the wheelbase is too short relative to the overhang front and rear. I now 2 have MK VI sedans. - a 1980 Navy 351 which is a terrific car and a metallic red Signature series sedan with the 302. Finally I also own a 1981 Imperial in Mahogany Mist. I love the styling. It has had the injection removed by the dealer. It is a great car but does not have great power. Just adequate. It is a shame these were not offered with the 4 barrel 360. It is also not as expensive feeling as the Seville and Lincoln. So, in the words of Packard - Ask the Man who owns one.
The format is awesome!👍 I am enjoying learning a lot of the under hood particulars, although I'm more geared towards the stylistic automotive interest. These were definitely testaments to the opulent '80s. Just becoming of age to drive and being an automotive enthusiast, and in addition to seeing them on the road, I would also eagerly comb through any magazine or publication we had, to see the auto advertisements. The one clip of the ad on here, for the '81 Coupe DeVille, I believe it was, I remember seeing when that was new. I also remember the Seville ads of the time, their two-tone paint schemes always had such interestingly clever names, Desert Rose and Canyon fire mist and such. I had an aunt who from the '60s on always had a new Cadillac every few years, I mainly remember as a kid riding in her El Dorados, she had the DeVilles in the '80s, and the early 90s full size Fleetwood. I think her last was the '96 Fleetwood, all just heavy Luxo boats! I always found the early '80s Mark VIs very appealing, especially the four-door version. I've also always been fond of the imperial's totally unique and intriguing style! Great video 📸😊
Great video! Lincoln please, I had the 77 Seville pictured. A metallic midnight blue. Fast ride and really enjoyed the bucket Style seats. Thanks again for sharing!
Cadillac SeVille with the 5.7 Diesel is my pick... Remember that Mark/Continental was offered with a Diesel in 1984/85 along with the SeVille still being offered in Diesel. Chrysler/Imperial never offered a Diesel option that I know of. I believe the 1981 Mark was the first offering of the Ford "key-Pad" entry option?? Great video!!! Yes, these comparison videos are very nice. Please do more Adam!!!. Please drive heavy on cars like the RWD 98, RWD Fleetwood, Town Car, etc. for future videos...Also don't forget the one year only 1985 FWD GM diesel Fleetwood/DeVille/98/88 option... Thank you!!!! Freddy in Arkansas Huge pusher for knowledge sharing and the preservation of the GM diesel legacy..
When they don’t have the crappy and cheap-looking fake wire wheel hubcaps, and instead come with those beautiful aluminum wheels, the Imperial is STILL stunning. I’m not a luxury car guy, but those are beautiful.
I've just watched this episode again and I really like that 2Tone Seville Elegante. I've never seen one in the flesh but I'd be interested in buying one.
My grandparents bought a 1981 Seville brand new with every concealable option. Cloth top, leather, Chapman alarm…. She drove that thing until 2005. I believe they paid somewhere in the low 30k for it. That was big paper in 1981.
The Cadillac Seville was one of the "BEST LEMONS" ever produced by GM!!!! Hundreds of poorly designed systems, and constant maintenance required. Sold mine after just 7K miles. Biggest mistake of my entire life!!!! Switched to Lexus and NEVER even the slightest hiccup!!!! GM just never got the message from Japanese manufacturers, and that was the beginning of their demise. Compare sales and maintenance figures and you will see where the reliability lies!!!
The malaise era is still the malaise era no matter how it is presented. That being said, this series presents a terrific objective viewpoint with insightful knowledge that appears to be the best on UA-cam pertaining to the subject. Although I have been aware of the majority of what has been presented I have still learned a great deal. Well done!👏
Hi Adam, I learned to drive in a 76 mark 4. Graduated HS in 81. I remember, nobody liked these cars. Frustrated domestic buyers had no choice. It was a sad time. The 76 MK 4, wherein, I learned to drive, was an amazing car within it's realm. Your work on utoob is very good. Really unmatched.
I would go with the Lincoln. Much more reliable and it has a more timeless design. And most importantly it was the car Ford introduced their keyless entry keypad on. That keypad is still in use today. If you’ve ever experienced it you’ll understand why Ford still has it all these years later.
Another great video thanks. My wife's family had that Lincoln, and it was a completely conventional, safe choice for the elderly here in south Florida.
The Seville with the "Hook & Tow" 4100 engine ! Two of my friends had them and they were nice looking cars with lots of room inside. Once they got the engines replaced they were reliable.
Original and in-depth assessment format , rarely seen. Historically done one car at a time so this is truly breathe of fresh air so to speak. Being an 73 T-Bird, 78 Mk V and Mustang owner Im somewhat biased here. Of course I'd take the Lincoln if for only the true coffin like interior sound dampening with body on frame a huge help on this vehicle. Too damn box-like for me, I mean it lost I think 8 inches and 800 lbs???!! I get it due to early 80s Detroit as a whole trending but still uggh. Still Lincoln my choice then Imperial ( Mirada with alot of jewelry) Thank you Sir well done.
Very good video, I remember when each car came out, but was not aware at the time about all of their related issues. Keep up the great work. I like this format over physically showing one car at a time.
My pick, if I were to buy one of these, would be the Lincoln. No contest. Used to have an '88 Grand Marquis. The fuel injected 302 was powerful and super smooth, was a super comfortable and dependable car, 25 mpg on the highway at 70 mph.
Must agree with your ranking. I think the Imperial wore the bustle back style more gracefully than did the Seville. But under those elegant creases, was a decidedly mundane chassis that dated back to the Aspen and Volare, even sharing the wheelbase of the 4-door models. And the fuel system as you pointed out was a disaster with no functional benefits beyond a Diplomat police or taxi special. The Panther-based Mark VI had virtually nothing to distinguish it from the downsized Lincoln Towncar. A 4-door model (would you like fake fender louvers and oval opera windows?) seemed an afterthought.
![[UA] Team Vitality проти NAVI | IEM Cologne 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wttO1zVRTC0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #1 НАЧАЛО ПУТЕШЕСТВИЯ [Новый сезон] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/380Q7gLWGvk/mqdefault.jpg)
Adam, your analysis is spot on. During this period I was employed by a elderly couple who owned both the this Cadillac and a Mark 6. I had multiple opportunities to ride in both of them. The ride in the Mark 6 made the Cadillac feel like an Impala. Not kidding, it was a stark difference. Gotta love the way all three manufacturers must have conspired with one another to come up with nearly exact horsepower and torque figures.
It was just emissions regulations at the time
So the "Cimmaron", built out of the J-body with more soundproofing and a plusher interior, but mechanically the same as a Chevy Cavalier, wasn't the only instance of Cadillac "badge-engineering" a lesser GM model? As for that use of the Olds diesel engine...in hindsight, stupid.
Conspired? Not EVERYTHING is a conspiracy. But watch out for...KAYAK!!!😂😂😂
Cars to this day still have very similar figures across brands. It's because as a car company you're gonna spend as little money as possible to get a step up on the next guy. No need to bankrupt the company to have double the power of the next guys car when you can just spend a little bit to have 5 more HP than him.
@@selfdo LOL. Dude, do some research. They ALL badge-engineered their cars. The Continental was just a fancy Ford Crown Victoria/ Mercury Marquis.
I turned eleven years old in December 1980, and many of the 60s and 70s luxury cars were still actively on the road. I remember the Cadillac TV commercials for the V-8-6-4 technology and thought the concept was cool; interesting to learn the practical application was not as "cool". I absolutely loved the Seville rear end of the day (and a logical design evolution from the 1976 original), and thought the "new" Imperial design was modern, slightly "futuristic" and awesome. A family friend had a 1978 Mark V, and I got the chance to ride in that several times as a kid, my first real exposure to a high-end luxury vehicle. Absolutely awesome.
I’m a about 10 yrs younger and never had a chance to experience these America luxury cars. By 1990, anyone who had the means drove German and even Lexus/Infiniti. These American luxury cars were a rare sighting and they always seems so big and boxy/ancient looking in comparison.
Also to add, I never realized Chrysler was in the same leaque as or competed wCadillac or Lincoln. I always thought they were in line w Buick/mercury - at least that was my perception from the 90s.
@@Wasabi9111 These early 80's American luxury cars were flawed as was mentioned in the video. They simply had issues that shortened their life spans. Their market share continued to decline in the 80's while the Germans continued to grow. To your point, the introduction of the Lexus/Infiniti brands in the early 90's was, in my opinion, the last of the coffin nails
Before one could argue how much expensive the Germans cars were ...not with the Lexus/Infiniti intros you had cars at the same price as the Americans and were much better built
@@turnne GM had a good thing going - in the right direction no less - with the original Seville. It was leaner and less ornate - a real rival for the Germans. They ruined it though - many of the older customers thought that the most expensive Caddy should be bigger and fancier like their other models - so in a panic, they did. Essentially killed the brand in the long run and the Japanese rolled over them in the 90's.
@@wincrasher2007 In the 70's GM did have a lot of market share..I agree with you
However..there was a lot more to the those German sedans than the lack of chrome and smaller size. The driving experience was night and day different
The 1980 Seville was definitely a larger and more ornate and even less " international".
However...the weak engines, poor build quality and the fact that the market was moving more upscale were coffin nails.
I grew in Dallas and at the time of the early 80's the Mercedes dealers were cashing in.
It was the "car to have" for the affluent people
A few things I have never understood from then and shortly after
1. Why didnt GM etc build more upscale cars to go after Mercedes and try to maintain their brand image
and then
2. Why didnt GM/Ford react more aggressively when Lexus came onto the scene and was selling cars( like hotcakes) that were clearly better at the Cadillac/Lincoln prices
The 80's and 90's were like a 1,2 punch for the American luxury car makers
Market share kept dropping, they put their cars in every rental car fleet
it kept getting worse and worse
Great video! What is missing in the discussion is the fact that the Imperial was the only one of the three that was hand-built: the way the trunk closed, the alignment of the doors, the quality of the seat stitching and other small joys are continual rewards of owning this remarkable car.
Really? Even the '70s Imperials were hand-built? What about the Iacocca period? I am not differing with you, I just find that surprising.
@@dansmusic5749 "Iacocca Imperials" are actually Chrysler Imperials '81-'83 and were hand-built. The '55-'75 Imperials were NOT Chryslers and were hand-built in that they had hand-fitted body panels, interiors, etc and every car was driven and inspected prior to delivery. For low-volumn cars like the Imperials, hand-fittment and assembly not only produces a superior product, but avoids the excrutiating costs of jigs, dies and other expensive manufacturing stuff that require huge sales numbers to ammortize.
@@bobtepedino5661 Very interesting. I wish you would say how you know this. I do think Imperials are very fine cars.
I didn't used to think so, when I was young, because Chrysler products, back then, were not known for high-quality bodies. But, they were still good cars.
@@dansmusic5749 I appreciate your scepticism, Dan, and I know you realize why I can't publish my bone fides here on UA-cam.
@@bobtepedino5661 Well, you have an honest face, Bob. 🤔 lol
Great info Adam! It would seem that the Lincoln was the least compromised mechanically. It would have been a tough pill to swallow when told that your expensive luxury car can be"fixed" by putting a carburetor on it or to disable your v8-6-4 feature (that the salesperson probably touted as the best thing since sliced bread). That said, the Seville was always my favorite of the period, of course I was 11. Thank you for what you do!
Absolutely, and i'm a GM guy.
The Cadillac was front wheel drive. And while that may have been regarded as avant-garde, it just doesn't belong in this class of car.
The Chrysler has a three-speed were the others had a four-speed automatic. It also had a live rear axle with leaf springs, and the same platform as a Cordoba 2, or a Dodge Mirada.
Has to be the Lincoln. Easy choice.
The 1976 was the best looking caddy of the era. Who knew a Nova could look so good😉.
Then and now. I would buy a nice one if I could find one.
What is "Nova" about the Cad?
@@Rob-ur4ft The 1976 Seville was based on the Nova platform, although GM changed enough details to give it its own chassis code.
Lot of folks disabled the cylinder deactivation feature on the Cadillac . Wasn't a bad engine in V8 only mode . That generation of Seville was very elegant. The 368 cid engine was the last of the 472 , 500 , 425 block .
The format is fine and will be a nice compliment to your regular in person car reviews with the actual car.
Your knowledge, experience and research is why I watch. Cheers 🇨🇦
Adam,Great comparison………I love all three. People would knock the Cadillac 8-6-4. An older Cadillac tech told me years ago the 8-6-4 as it was intended was horrible however just unplug the 6-8 relays and use as an 8 it should run 300k. I owned one of these Lincoln’s and I miss it…..handling F- . Cadillacs always handled better. The Seville and imperial were just Avant-garde cool and different from all other cars. It’s a love it or hate it opinion.
I had the Seville for 30 minutes. Bought it from a neighbor in SW Fl. Drove it 1/4 mile to a gas station, someone asked if i wanted to sell it, and offered me twice what i had just paid. Bye bye seville
Yes, I definitely like this format. I used to really enjoy reading the road tests comparing various large American sedans and I own several old publications from the 70’s and 80’s such as “Road Test”, “Motor Trend”, “Car & Driver”, “Consumer Reports” etc. Many of these publications are still in print but I haven’t looked at any for almost a decade as the American automobile has declined to the point that there really isn’t anything of interest left to read about. By and large they never were fans of large soft luxury models but it is kind of fun to read their scathing remarks. Back in the day if they didn’t approve of a car that would be the one I would want. They seem to think everything including large luxury sedans should be track ready and that is just so unpractical and ridiculous!
Adam, you’re killing me with your content. Good one! Keep the memories coming!
A lot of these Lincolns are still on the road today.
I had an 84 Seville (same body as the 81), Loved it! The Styling, interior all of it. It was plush and luxurious. It was a marshmallow as far as power but everything was in those years too. A friend had the Imperial and my boss had the Mark 6. The tires and wheels were too small for the Mark 6 for my taste. The Imperial was pretty. To do it all over again I would still pick the Seville.
The rear of the Seville was a head turner .
Tim Shelby - I was thinking more head scratcher, but i guess that's why "art" is subjective.
I agree with you on the styling of the Seville and the Imperial. I was really surprised that Chrysler had echoed the 1980 Seville's awkward-looking "bustle back" when they introduced the Imperial for 1981 with that marked extension of the Imperial's C-pillar line to suggest a Seville-like bustle. They must have designed the exterior of the 1981 Imperial before the 1980 Seville's sales figures were in.
The imperials styling was done before the 1980 Seville was released. the fact that both have bustle backs is coincidental.
My father loved Cadillac's as he grew up poor , everyone was poor... but he always admired Cadillac as a young man. He bought one of these diesels in 82. It was slow. loud and smoked badly. Never really had many issues with it but you had to plug in a block heater on cold nights. Pops didn't keep it long and sold it for a good price and bought a 6.0 to replace it. He was much happier with the old push rod gas motor. I felt the late 70s were better cars however, the DeVilles that is. RIP Pops.
I agree that the Imperial had the nicest exterior styling, but the interior looked cheaper than the Cadillac. The Seville styling, to me anyway, would have been OK without the bustle-back. The Eldorado didn't have it and had decent looks and proportions.
Hey Adam, thanks for the trip back to 1981. I remember that all the car companies put a lot of time & money into the advertising, the commercials of the time were great!!! I'd have to go with the Continental Mark Vl, it had the best engine & the ride was smooth & comfortable!!! Thanks for sharing this great video!!! 👍👍
The fireside chats from the porch are enjoyable because you’re such a natural speaker. I’d suggest a hybrid between the front porch and this new format. Go back to the porch but with many more visuals. I also don’t think you need the music. Your stories are powerful enough to carry it. But it’s early days and it’s good to try new things and find your own comfort zone. 👍
Agreed.
Agree with this gentlemen 100,,percent
I agree with this also. Perhaps since this is the first time using the new format, it appears less smooth than the originals porch and field chats and driveway reviews. But still well done. I think you do well regardless of format, but the originals have been great, imo.
What a great way to start a Saturday. The era-appropriate background music is perfect too, love to know what you used.
Adam, your channel keeps getting better and better. I hope you continue to do other years in this format. I'd love to see the last year of the "land yachts", 1978, with the Eldorado, Mark V and New Yorker.
My buddy had an 82 Cadillac Sedan Deville with the Buick 4.1 liter V6 and a hair over 90K miles on the original engine. When I was done tuning it that little V6 was pretty decent and would actually squeal the rear tire out on full throttle and gave decent power all the way up to about 70 MPH after which it tailed off a bit. The trick with these engines was to make sure the base timing was set to factory specs or a little over, the secondary's were opening properly and replacing the restrictive pellet catalytic converter. Those changes plus a tune up really woke this little V6 up. It was also interesting to note this V6 used a higher volume oil pump as in the turbo 3.8, had upgraded head gaskets and used a beefier rolled filet crank as with the turbo 3.8. With that thought I would pick the Seville with this engine tied to the equally reliable 325 transmission in the lighter Seville body if I was forced to choose.
I was a kid when the Seville came out, and I recall being in awe, perhaps obsessed by it. It seemed so special, particularly compared to my family’s Subarus. It’s rather polarizing but I just love it still!
Missing the view of the pond with the occasional waterfowl side bar commentary.
Your more personal delivery approach is one of your strongpoints in my opinion.
You’re a wealth of knowledge Adam, thank you for sharing your passion.
Adam and the Red-winged Blackbirds are back this morning with a new video.
I was in the 9th grade in 1980-81 and recall these cars and the commercials for them as well. We were shopping for a new car for my brother....a 1981 Plymouth TC3 at our local Chrysler Plymouth dealer. In the showroom, a new Imperial in ice blue with a dark blue Mark Cross leather interior. I recall sitting in that car while my brother and Dad were negotiating the purchase on the Plymouth. I thought who would purchase this car would be a very lucky person. The Imperial shared showroom space with the new K cars. The TC3 we purchased was a graphic red with a 1.7 liter VW sourced four cylinder...and after 5 years, we ended up selling it after having problem after problem with it.
The economics of the time were challenging...high inflation and interest rates....cars that struggled to perform and had questionable quality and a feeling of when will this end. The following year, GM had the new F bodies for the Firebird and Trans Am....the 5.0 Mustang was introduced and seemed to point to the end of the malaise era. Reading the new car previews for 1982 and 83, it seemed there were more choices and better performance...and having got my license in 81, it was encouraging to see better choices during the remainder of the 1980s.
I do recall Lincoln embracing the bustle back design with a Continental four door in 1982 that was based on the Fox Platform.
Love this new format Adam. I found your end analysis very spot on as well regarding the best bits from each of the three. Always loved the styling of the Imperial and the dashboard. Hoping someday there will be a market niche for the 2dr personal luxury car again, although it would probably have 20" wheels & offer 4WD but still. Cheers!
I knew a guy who had a 1981 Imperial parked behind his house. He was quite angry that he couldn't get the parts to repair it, and had parked it in 1983.
You are fresh whiff of UA-cam air. No hype, no click bait. Your knowledge makes me wonder if you are the automotive version of Data the Android. Great channel.
My grandma had a Lincoln Mark designer series.. it was like driving on a cloud - it was a uncommonly smooth and silent.
Higher inflation than today? I think we’ve matched 1981. Damn close anyway.
Great comparison. My choice would be the Seville, the styling has stood up to the test of time, especially with 2Tone paint.
My opinion Seville - it's the most polished of the three. Deactivating the cylinder deactivation of course.
Great video and format. Very well documented and presented. Your analysis is spot on regarding combining the Lincoln ride and GM engineering to apply in the Chrysler J-body Imperials, which are much more aerodynamic and were actually used briefly in NASCAR. Sadly, primitive throttle-body EFI computer technology and questionable engine choices in the Cadillac, quickly made these cars problematic. They can also be a nightmare to pass the (1976-on) California Emissions test as replacement parts are long gone. Though more susceptible to rust, the Imperials had the best initial build quality of the three, using thicker gauge steel and a more elaborate paint application. Finding a well-cared-for model today is very difficult.
The Cadillac. Because I like its style best. The Chrysler looks a little to weird, expecially the long overhangs (or too short wheel base), and the Lincoln just looks outdated, like a smaller version of the 70s models. (Of course, in comparison to todays cars, all 3 looks fine an remind me at the sad loss of unique US-Car styling..)
Funny, that the "malaise aera" brought such a beautiful (exterior und interior) design. Looking to all theese trucks on the road, we have a new malaise aera today!
Tremendous format, so much information in a great package, please keep this idea up and running. Thanks Adam.
I like your new format. I enjoy your explanation of the automobiles and how you bring note to the styling ques and options available at the time. I appreciate how you focus on primarily the luxury and unique autos of the pre 1990 years. I feel those were the years when those autos were truly works of art.
OMG I use to love the Seville Diesel I was young when we had one I use to love that rattling of the engine and he's right you couldn't hear it from the inside, but it was my favorite car I loved it!!!
I had 3 great aunt's that each owned one of these. My personal favorite was the Imperial. It looked so futuristic to my 8 year old self. The back seat of the Imperial was so comfy.
I was never a fan of the bustle-back but I think I'd have the Cadillac over the other two. At least I wouldn't have to look at the bustle back while I was driving it so the styling is someone else's problem at that point.
That 368 was also in the Deville, which was better than any of these three. So disable the cylinder deactivation and you’d have a nice car.
One of my favorite late 70’s cruisers was a ’78 Deville with that beautiful 425 engine. Smooth, dependable, and supremely comfortable. Loved that car !!
Thanks Adam for another really good video. I like this format as well. I love the Imperial, but they seemed to have to many problems and the Cadillac, to me, looked like someone stepped on the back and they never fixed it. I think the 82 to 87 Lincoln Continental had a much nicer application of the bustle-back. Then they ruined the car in 88. I would have chosen a Mark VI Coupe on the shorter wheelbase. All classy automobiles with different ideas on comfort and luxury. Love the velour in the Lincolns and the seating in the Imperial, cloth or leather.
My grandfather was a cardiologist.
He drove Buicks because he thought Cadillacs were too ostentatious but my grandmother did drive Cadillacs.
My grandfather would buy two new cars every two years .
When they went to the showroom to view the new Seville, my grandmother was driving the previous generation Seville at the time, she said that was the most hideous car she'd ever seen!
She decided to keep the Seville she was driving until the vehicle was restyled.
The 1980 Seville was probably the best of that generation with proven 350 V8.
My father owned and drove the big Lincolns from the early/ mid 70s. He toyed with getting a new Seville in '76 or '77 and disliked the Mk V with an apparent passion. He didn't seem to notice the Imperial that I ever recognized and finally by the late 80s and early 90s, he gave up all together on the luxury brands. He and my mother bought a brand new Saturn in '90. She drove it until she couldn't drive anymore after he died a very short time after they bought it. They're both gone now (my parents) but I still think of them everyday. :)
I would have compared the 1982 Lincoln Continental rather than the Mark VI to the Seville and Imperial as it had the same rear end styling that was all the rage in the early 80's. (The 1982 Lincoln Continental should have been called Versailles but the first version bombed so they took the Lincoln Continental name for the Versailles replacement and made the Lincoln Continental the Town Car (which was always an interior trim option)).
My neighbor growing up bought a new Caddy every two years. Usually DeVilles and then Fleetwoods. One year he bought a Seville with the square trunk. He got rid of it quickly. Said it was too small. I thought it was beautiful👍
I like the opening image with 3 Pontiac Grand Prixs parked in front of that dealership. Some call that bussleback Cadillac the garbage truck back.
Here’s my up vote for the new format!
I love the good looks of the redesign Seville. I worked for Cadillac back then. Very nice cars to drive!
Over the years I had two outta the three, absolutely hated the Seville the mark vi was a decent runner but lacked quality control , I always wanted an imperial and I will find one before I kick the bucket
What was your dislike of the caddy, other than the engines
I personally liked the bussell back design but at the time I had this Seville I was a member of a local Cadillac club and was told it was not a real Cadillac with that ass end and also to add the car had some weird electrical problems @@gordonborsboom7460
I’m currently in the market to buy either a Lincoln Mark V (Diamond Jubilee Edition) or the Mark VI (because it gets much better gas mileage). I absolutely LOVE these cars. I think they’re some of the prettiest luxury cars ever built. I also like the last version of the big Eldorado, preferably the 77 or 78, as I like that they moved the taillights back into the rear quarter panel tail fins. I like the Lincoln Mark VII as well, but its interior looked more like something I’d expect to see in a Thunderbird than Lincoln’s top luxury car. While it certainly wasn’t ugly, it lacked the panache of the cars that proceeded it. That’s about the time that the big three automakers started replacing quality materials with cheap plastic. Nobody however, did that more than GM. What’s even worse is that the quality of the plastic that GM used was hideous. The sun used to rot away the door panels as well as all the other plastics used to hide the vehicle structure elements. After about 4 years of sitting in the sun, it was common to be able to chip chunks of rotted plastic off these poorly made panels. And the cheaper the car was, the more plastic it was swaddled with, with the Chevette being the absolute worst.
Rare Classic Cars has become my favorite car channel. Adam, your knowledge and presentation are first rate. I hope you will do a feature on the M-body 1982-1989 Chrysler Fifth Avenue. They were very popular in their day but have all but disappeared now.
My cousin crashed into a moose in a Seville of that era. It literally spilt the car into 2 halves at the B pillar. She lived. I worked at a Chrysler dealership in '86. I had the pleasure of applying the 'TSB' to an '83 Imperial. Crazy stuff. The kit to 'fix' drivability on the Imperial involved a pallet of parts including gas tank, fuel pump, carburetor and on and on. Yea, the thing(TSB kit) arrived LTL freight on a pallet. Remove fuel injection, install corporate carburetor system. Funny, I still remember the special tool kits for working on the pressure=drip fuel injection system for Imperial. It included a clear air intake cover so you could observe the drip. So funny. So way long gone. I think the Imperial injection system on the 318 yielded maybe, just maybe 95Hp? Not sure of that.
Very accurate telling of three top luxury automobiles. The styling of the Imperial was, and still is, beautiful. The styling of the Seville grew on me in time. The Mark VI was just too blocky. I was surprised that you didn't pick the Mark VI as your outright choice. As a side note, the 'wood trim' in all three was laughable, but the Imperial's was, by far, the worst.
I love the comparison format. Nice job Adam!
The Mark is just too blocky for me to pick it. It rode the best, but the styling was a let down for me.
I would choose the Cadillac Seville Elegante in the 2 tone Maroon Leather interior and the 8,6,4 V8 engine or the 4.1 V6. When that design came out I fell in love with it. I just adored the throwback to the ‘40s & ‘30s with that ‘Bustle Back’ styling. It’s pretty much a love it or hate it design. I prefer 4 Doors and the Imperial either didn’t come as a 4 Door or didn’t carry it off. I can’t remember which.
I would gladly own one today. My next door neighbor had the Eldorado w/V8,6,4 and he hated it. If it proved problematic I would disable the Cylinder reduction feature.
These were "old guy cars" when they were new, especially the Seville. My Dad carpooled to work with an older Gentleman during this time period who had the Seville. I remember that it had a v6 motor, very quiet and smooth, but pretty slow. My Dad had a '70 Impala with the 400 small block at the time. Dad liked power in his cars, said he didn't have the patience to drive a Seville
A very good overview as always, Adam! I have extensive driving and maintenance experience of two Mark VIs Signature Series sedans, a very early production '80 with the 351, and an '81 with the 302. Both were beautifully made, feature laden cars which a riding and driving experience much improved over the '77 Continental Town Car they replaced. Being a very early production '80, it had some nagging teething problems that required a few trips to the dealer to fix. But that 351 (CA car) would burn a little rubber if you were so inclined! By comparison, the '81 rode and handled as well but felt only adequately powered. The new 4-speed AOD on both cars did hunt a bit around 40 MPH, but the mileage increase was certainly worth the difference. The bugs had been worked out by then and the '81 was very reliable. At the time, a work friend bought a new '81 Coupe de Ville with the V-8-6-4 and it was so problematic replaced it in three months with a Pontiac. I haven't much experience with the Imperial -- they were non-existent where I lived. I really prefer the styling of the Imperial over the Cadillac -- but I generally was/am not a fan of the bustle back style.
I had to laugh at the 40 mph AOD hunt!. Outside of primitive, but generally reliable, TBI on the motor, the AOD was the only sorta Achilles heel on the otherwise bullet proof Panther Mark VI. Definitely agree the handling was much improved over the '70s Lincolns, without compromising the great ride they were known for. This upload makes much of the controversial styling of the Seville and the Imperial, but the Mark VI always struck me as a little ridiculous with the carryover spare tire hump, oval opera windows, gilled fenders (with optional brightwork edges!), and covered headlights, which were all considered design excess by 1980. The upmarket trim Mark VI interiors were the best of all three of these cars.
I still love the looks of the Cadillac Seville, bustle-rump and all. Now I know that the Seville had trim options but the design was fully realized only in the Seville Elegante. Without the two-tone paint separated by the chrome bodyside spear, the second generation Seville simply didn't look right. I do remember seeing a mono-tone standard Seville with the Elegante bodyside spear, must have been an option to help base models look "normal", lol. Otherwise, gimme a Mark VI Signature Series 4-door!
I'd have gone for the Lincoln for 1981... And Adam I'm with you on your choice. Very good, and I do agree 👍
1981 was a great year for me. Was just becoming car aware. A new Ford LTD Crown Victoria 2 door was gracing our garage while kid across the streets parents got a VW Rabbit diesel. World's apart those two. Noise and soot and 'German Engineering' became synonymous to me, while Detroit Iron became quiet and soft riding with plenty of chrome outside. The bustleback Seville means Ally Sheedys character in the Breakfast Club to me. The Mark VI means 'successful accountant' whereas the Mark V meant 'elegant rogue' as the car mags put it. The Imperial was one of the first non C3 Corvette / non Trans Am cars that made my young head turn and ask pop "what was that". Pity they messed up a 318/Torqueflite application. That is not easily done after all. Love it when Detroit actually tries to make something glitzy and different. Waiting in vain for the next one?
This was informative and it would be a hard choice to make. You should do more of these comparisons. I like the images and the effort put into this video. Thank you
Another good review.
The real problem that each of these models faced was that by 1981, they really weren't seen as aspirational outside of the mid-west rustbelt states and maybe some southern states. The idea of 'Luxury' had moved on and by this time would have included not just plushiness and a smooth ride, but also more driver oriented attributes such as road holding, responsiveness build quality and, the big one, engineering. Under the flashy sheet metal there was nothing really special about these cars. Magazines like Car and Driver, Road&Track etc. always pointed that out - most often in entertaining ways.
Great review. I love the looks of all these cars, but I thought the Imperial was so cool!
“Sybaritic”: I had to look that one up. That sounds like something you’d hear on JEOPARDY as in, “The answer is, Adjective derived from an ancient Greek city in Italy whose citizens were famous for relishing luxury.” Nice video.
The local Cadillac dealership had trouble with young people stealing the hood ornaments from the new cars. They had to remove them from the cars until someone would purchase the cars. This was back when the dealership was in the downtown area.
I like this format. the information and knowledge you bring to these continues to amaze
I like the design of the Seville, but have never driven it. In the late 1990's I regularly drove an armored(!) 1981 Fleetwood limousine, with a V8-6-4 engine, with the technology switched off. It handled the extra weight beautifully and was in no way slow.
After a change og ownership the technology was returned to the original V8-6-4 by a skilled Lexus mechanic.
A friend of ours still owns his 1981 Imperial, which - as stated - has been converted to carburator. I drove it in 2018. It rides like any car, which is not driven very often. The car is mint with the interior in beautiful condition.
I have driven a handfull of Lincolns from the 1980's, starting with a Town Car from 1981. They are smooth and quiet, but other than that "boxes on wheels". You feel you sit in a down-size car with up-size seats. My love for Lincoln didn't return untill 1990 with the introduction of the new Town Car.
The 1980's was generally an undesirable decade for fans of US luxury cars.
This one is easy. I’d take the Lincoln based on its ride and reliability. That engine was extremely reliable, being practically fault for during the entire life of the car. You may think it’s boxy, but I for one, love the looks, especially with the coupe. In the dark maroon color, there’s very few cars that look better, including stuff being made today. My Mark VI would be a maroon coupe with the velour interior, electronic dashboard with trip computer, sunroof, and Ford’s keyless entry code system at the top of the door, just above the door handle. As a second choice, I’d take the Imperial as long as it had gone through the conversion process. Last is the Cadillac, which was a sad follow-on to the gorgeous Seville that proceeded it. That was a massive setback to the Seville nameplate. And that’s so typical of GM, who notoriously screws up the design of their cars, especially those they managed to get right the first time around. Three additional cars GM came out with that were perfect in their very first design are the Buick Riviera, the Olds Tornado with it’s stunning blade fenders, and the incredible Cadillac Eldorado with it’s hidden headlights and sharp rear quarter panels ended into the taillights. Those three cars are probably the finest designs ever seen on a first released production car. And with just a few model years, GM managed to royally screw all three up, especially with the 1972 Tornado, which has one of the ugliest front ends of any large car GM ever built. How GM managed to go from the 1966 model into the 1972 model without anyone stopping the design studio from making such a catastrophic mistake is one of the auto industry’s biggest mysteries.
enjoyed this look at older luxury American autos! thanks for posting.
Thanks for using my old car for the initial photo to the video. That ‘81 Seville won its class at the 2004 Caddy Grand National.
Oh cool. Gorgeous color combo!
Saw a _lot_ of that body-style Seville. They were very popular in that era. What sticks in memory is the Imperial supposedly being offered with a lifetime warranty. Those were Chrysler's dark days.
I like this guy’s channel. He’s mellow, knowledgeable, and a true car guy. Now…..if I could only get him to sell me that ‘66 Catalina…
$50k ;). Ha!
I remember seeing these vehicles on the road AND my matchbox collection. 😀
I always loved the bustleback Seville. I wanted to replace the back seat with one from a Olds Custom Cruiser wagon so it would fold down and make the trunk into a sleeper/camper. Unfortunately never got around to it.
Thank God....
I was 15 in 1981 when the Seville came out with the "buffle back" and I thought it looked kind of weird at first.
The fact that my dad liked it was a VERY BAD SIGN...
But after a while I started to like it. The car itself was a pathetic pile of GM cost cutting, but the FWD design was actually quite good. I've never driven or even ridden in one of these, but I honestly think that this is a car that in good shape today should be a collectors item due to the fact that it was so unique. Lincoln copied the design with the '82 Continental and theirs wasn't quite as special, you could tell it was really a Ford Fairmont with the rear end sculpted to look vaguely like the Seville.
Great video!
I loved my 85 grand prix! Great car and took me and 3 friends down to Florida for spring break yrs ago, without one problem.
Love the new format. watched this when it first was published, and a long time viewer
I come from the unique position of owning or having owned all of these. I had a light gold 1981 Seville with the 468. I would say it was a great looking car, rode and handled well, was well equipped and finished. But the engine would cut out sometimes and you always felt like something was about to go wrong. These days I would like a two tone 1980 Elegante with the standard 6 litre. I have owned a Mark VI Bill Blass coupe. It drove extremely well and I would rate it better than the Seville all things considered. I like the styling but it is a little boxy - the main issue being the wheelbase is too short relative to the overhang front and rear. I now 2 have MK VI sedans. - a 1980 Navy 351 which is a terrific car and a metallic red Signature series sedan with the 302. Finally I also own a 1981 Imperial in Mahogany Mist. I love the styling. It has had the injection removed by the dealer. It is a great car but does not have great power. Just adequate. It is a shame these were not offered with the 4 barrel 360. It is also not as expensive feeling as the Seville and Lincoln. So, in the words of Packard - Ask the Man who owns one.
So overall, based on what was actually available I say 1) Lincoln MKVI, 2) Imperial, 3) Seville.
The format is awesome!👍 I am enjoying learning a lot of the under hood particulars, although I'm more geared towards the stylistic automotive interest. These were definitely testaments to the opulent '80s. Just becoming of age to drive and being an automotive enthusiast, and in addition to seeing them on the road, I would also eagerly comb through any magazine or publication we had, to see the auto advertisements. The one clip of the ad on here, for the '81 Coupe DeVille, I believe it was, I remember seeing when that was new. I also remember the Seville ads of the time, their two-tone paint schemes always had such interestingly clever names, Desert Rose and Canyon fire mist and such. I had an aunt who from the '60s on always had a new Cadillac every few years, I mainly remember as a kid riding in her El Dorados, she had the DeVilles in the '80s, and the early 90s full size Fleetwood. I think her last was the '96 Fleetwood, all just heavy Luxo boats! I always found the early '80s Mark VIs very appealing, especially the four-door version. I've also always been fond of the imperial's totally unique and intriguing style! Great video 📸😊
Great video! Lincoln please, I had the 77 Seville pictured. A metallic midnight blue. Fast ride and really enjoyed the bucket Style seats. Thanks again for sharing!
Great video format.
Cadillac SeVille with the 5.7 Diesel is my pick... Remember that Mark/Continental was offered with a Diesel in 1984/85 along with the SeVille still being offered in Diesel. Chrysler/Imperial never offered a Diesel option that I know of. I believe the 1981 Mark was the first offering of the Ford "key-Pad" entry option??
Great video!!! Yes, these comparison videos are very nice. Please do more Adam!!!. Please drive heavy on cars like the RWD 98, RWD Fleetwood, Town Car, etc. for future videos...Also don't forget the one year only 1985 FWD GM diesel Fleetwood/DeVille/98/88 option... Thank you!!!!
Freddy in Arkansas
Huge pusher for knowledge sharing and the preservation of the GM diesel legacy..
When they don’t have the crappy and cheap-looking fake wire wheel hubcaps, and instead come with those beautiful aluminum wheels, the Imperial is STILL stunning. I’m not a luxury car guy, but those are beautiful.
As an enthusiasts, the hunchback Caddy with the 350 diesel would be a fun car to play with.
I've just watched this episode again and I really like that 2Tone Seville Elegante. I've never seen one in the flesh but I'd be interested in buying one.
My grandparents bought a 1981 Seville brand new with every concealable option. Cloth top, leather, Chapman alarm…. She drove that thing until 2005. I believe they paid somewhere in the low 30k for it. That was big paper in 1981.
The Cadillac Seville was one of the "BEST LEMONS" ever produced by GM!!!! Hundreds of poorly designed systems, and constant maintenance required. Sold mine after just 7K miles. Biggest mistake of my entire life!!!! Switched to Lexus and NEVER even the slightest hiccup!!!! GM just never got the message from Japanese manufacturers, and that was the beginning of their demise. Compare sales and maintenance figures and you will see where the reliability lies!!!
The malaise era is still the malaise era no matter how it is presented. That being said, this series presents a terrific objective viewpoint with insightful knowledge that appears to be the best on UA-cam pertaining to the subject. Although I have been aware of the majority of what has been presented I have still learned a great deal. Well done!👏
Hi Adam,
I learned to drive in a 76 mark 4. Graduated HS in 81. I remember, nobody liked these cars. Frustrated domestic buyers had no choice. It was a sad time.
The 76 MK 4, wherein, I learned to drive, was an amazing car within it's realm.
Your work on utoob is very good. Really unmatched.
I would go with the Lincoln. Much more reliable and it has a more timeless design. And most importantly it was the car Ford introduced their keyless entry keypad on. That keypad is still in use today. If you’ve ever experienced it you’ll understand why Ford still has it all these years later.
Another great video thanks. My wife's family had that Lincoln, and it was a completely conventional, safe choice for the elderly here in south Florida.
Saw a 81 Imperial at the Cars&Caffeine at Amelia Island (Fla.) today Adam. Met Peter Brock too!
The Seville with the "Hook & Tow" 4100 engine ! Two of my friends had them and they were nice looking cars with lots of room inside. Once they got the engines replaced they were reliable.
I love the format. Excellent production.
Original and in-depth assessment format , rarely seen. Historically done one car at a time so this is truly breathe of fresh air so to speak. Being an 73 T-Bird, 78 Mk V and Mustang owner Im somewhat biased here. Of course I'd take the Lincoln if for only the true coffin like interior sound dampening with body on frame a huge help on this vehicle. Too damn box-like for me, I mean it lost I think 8 inches and 800 lbs???!! I get it due to early 80s Detroit as a whole trending but still uggh. Still Lincoln my choice then Imperial ( Mirada with alot of jewelry) Thank you Sir well done.
Very good video, I remember when each car came out, but was not aware at the time about all of their related issues. Keep up the great work. I like this format over physically showing one car at a time.
Reliving the 80s…and the 70s…on this Channel. Keep the films coming, Adam!
My pick, if I were to buy one of these, would be the Lincoln. No contest. Used to have an '88 Grand Marquis. The fuel injected 302 was powerful and super smooth, was a super comfortable and dependable car, 25 mpg on the highway at 70 mph.
I don't like music in the background. Your smooth voice and pleasant demeanor are perfectly perfect. PS, really enjoy your content!
Must agree with your ranking. I think the Imperial wore the bustle back style more gracefully than did the Seville. But under those elegant creases, was a decidedly mundane chassis that dated back to the Aspen and Volare, even sharing the wheelbase of the 4-door models. And the fuel system as you pointed out was a disaster with no functional benefits beyond a Diplomat police or taxi special. The Panther-based Mark VI had virtually nothing to distinguish it from the downsized Lincoln Towncar. A 4-door model (would you like fake fender louvers and oval opera windows?) seemed an afterthought.