You also forgot what year it was. That was the best they could do with the technology they had. 37 years from now people will be laughing at what we have.
@@AntoineMiller No, the HT4100 was they worst they could do. They had a long history of excellent reliable engines before this pig, they don't get the "it was the 80's" excuse.
“…but if all else fails, we still have that rear-wheel drive Fleetwood Brougham.” You said it, brother. This ridiculously downsized shrimp mobile was never going to make Cadillac buyers happy. Unfortunately, CAFE brought down the once all-mighty “standard of the world”, but at least, at the time, you could still get a real Cadillac for another 11 years until the full-sized, body-on-frame, RWD Fleetwood was discontinued in 1996.
All of the old timers in the family drove big Buicks and Caddys back in the Seventies... I remember them all saying "what's this world coming to?" when the '77s were launched. They all thought they were too small.
Nostalgia makes these cars better in hindsight... they weren't awful when new either... they were just ok but that's not what Cadillac should ever be about... sadly that's what they are today...
The Olds 98 and Buick Electra were better with the bulletproof even-fire 3800 and better-integrated styling with fewer attempts to shoehorn on design cues meant for bulkier cars. You still had to special order and be deft with the options list to really move on from the malaise-era Brougham look, but it was possible (even if you ended up with a model that had the actual word "Brougham" in its' name).
Because of this car, 1985 marked the last year I ever stepped foot in a Cadillac showroom - and by the sales figures for that year, a lot of people felt the same way.
I had an 85 DeVille and most of what they said was true, Hook and Tow 4100 notwithstanding. I bought it cheap due to the reputation and I got good service out of it. The interior and ride were outstanding. I loved the big interior and the smaller exterior. I always wanted to get a later 4.9 version but unfortunately that never happened.
I would have to say this was the beginning of the end for Cadillac. The decline, thanks to the government started in 1977, When 1985 rolled around I remember thinking "where the hell is the rest of the car? They turned the Cadillacs into front-wheel drive snowmobiles. I found this video by accident and just had to see what the sales plan was to sell half the car it used to be for double the money.
Fully agreed! The Lunch Box version of Cadillac just didn't go well.. I guess they were so full of themselves that they thought they could just slap the Cadillac label on anything and people would line up in droves!
Not Cadillacs finest moment with these boxes. They drove nice and were peppy-especially with the 4.5. But the ergonomics weren't good and these things fell apart in short order. I remember the early and mid 90s where these were stacked up on used car lots with "new engine" or "rebuilt motor" written on the windshield. The Fleetwood 75 was the best looking of the bunch IMO.
These cars were (are) an embarrassment to all the is (was) Cadillac. The kind of BS think tank thinking you see in this video, is how the American Auto Industry fell. The people who bought these cars, thought they were buying the dream; it turned out to be a dream all right, the bean counters dream. Lots of folks burned on this era of Cad - lost customers, forever. And their kids, grandkids, etc., also became disenchanted... Thanks for posting this interesting historical perspective.
These models were the biggest snoozers for GM. I had a boyfriend who was at GM at this time. I recall he told me of a meeting he attended where Ford was actually congratulated for the success of the new Continental introduced at the same time. You never see these models on the road anymore, and I doubt they’ll never show up at the Concourse shows of the future.
I disagree, they sold many models of both the coupe and sedan deville and I’ve owned quite a few of each. In the late 80s early 90s, most of my family members drove these smaller FWD Cadillacs and we loved them. I still own a 90 coupe to this day. Also, there’s many groups dedicated to the “baby Cadillacs” and people still drive them for pleasure and transportation.
Not sure where some of his data is coming from...especially under the big is best group In the area I grew up in( Dallas Texas) that crowd was jumping straight into a big Mercedes in droves during this time frame and paying a LOT more money for them that a Cadillac
FORD Rouge is still drooling, after Rodger Smith droped the "Ball" on this one! "They'll buy what we sell them". Ford put a 3rd shift on the next month. Haven't looked back since !!!
I would prefer the diesel version of this Cadillac. Not the fastest but with a good mileage and the 4.3 litre V6 diesel was much more reliable than the 5.7 litre V8 diesel of the bigger rwd Fleetwood!😊
I owned an '86 Deville and gave them a second chance with an '88 Fleetwood. May I suggest an alternate title for this film..."How to put lipstick on a pig and get people to buy it."
At least not in 1985. By 1987 it felt more like a traditional Cadillac. I absolutely loved these, but still I agree that these didn’t have the class or prestige their predecessors did. Cadillac lost their class and prestige years prior when wealthy businessmen started seeing their golf caddies pulling up to the country club in brand new Cadillacs. That’s when their attention went over to exotic foreign imports that they knew would be out of reach of the common man.
@@TVHouseHistorian Cadillac should have never gone front wheel drive to begin with. I don’t get your assertion about 1987 - they were the same cars as ‘85. Horrible, ugly junk.
@@TVHouseHistorian people have blamed the Cimmeron and the 4.1 for the downfall of Cadillac but I blame the Calais. As snobby and undemocratic as it may seem, luxury goods need to exclusive to appeal to luxury buyers. The Calais cheapen cost of entry too much, not to mention some years a Caprice, Electra or Olds 98, even Bonneville was better equipped and more luxurious than even the DeVille
@@davidwilliams7723 - Tru but non of those cars EVER touched the price of a Calais, the top Optioned Electra was still a quite bit cheaper than the Calais
@@jakeballard7999 The Calais always sold in low numbers, the Deville was the $ maker. Calais was dropped in 1977. My parent had a 65 , first year for the Calais.
You just can't sugar-coat the HT4100 engine. Not even after-market insurance companies would insure it. I just can't watch all of this......wow this is too painful.
At that time there was no advantage to rear wheel drive over front wheel drive. Especially in the snow belt. More room. Better handling in show. No torque steer due to average acceleration. I liked the styling of these cars. GM quality was suspect
Of course nobody was cross shopping this Cadillac with a Mercedes. The Merc was a good 10-20 grand more in real dollars at that time which was astronomical. Think like 50 grand or more in today’s dollars.
Everything was so civilized not so long ago...Back then, we didn't realize it and had no idea the world would soon be taken over by savages and barbarians, which would also be reflected in car design.
The worst bunch of liars I’ve ever seen. These were literally the worst cars GM ever built. That’s not just an opinion, just look at the sales figures. These cars literally bankrupted the company
15:53 LOL! Bunch of moon talk dude! Real people knew what real class was. This was not it. You didn't see Rolls Royce, Mercedes, and BMW convert to FWD awfulness.
