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.
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.
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 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
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 .
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.
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 🇨🇦
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!!! 👍👍
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)).
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
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!
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!!!
Seemingly awful cars, each in its own way! Here in Europe the choice would’ve been easy - you’d have chosen a Mercedes 280 SE, probably at a similar price point
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.
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 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
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.
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.
Adam, maybe you can answer this: Why didn't GM continue with the Olds 350 fuel injected engine in the Eldorado and Seville from the first generation Seville. It was a winner?
It was purely a stop gap as Cadillac had no smaller sized V8 at the ready to install in the car and no production capacity to do so. Once they downsized their engine to 368ci, it superseded the Olds 350.
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.
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 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.
Right Lane Hog - First off.....great user name. Secondly......from 75(ish) to 84(ish) was the era of highest cubic inches to least HP ratio I've ever seen. Dark, dark days for a performance nut like me.
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!
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👍
First off, the Imperial isn't a Chrysler brand, it's made by Chrysler Corporation but Imperial was it's own brand with it's own dealers in 1981. You couldn't just go to a Chrysler Dealer and buy this car, you had to go to an Imperial Dealer. In 1981, it wasn't even offered in all 50 States. Arkansas didn't have a single Imperial Dealer. The Imperial Dealers were selected by Chrysler as their best dealer in the country. Only 250 dealers were in the first year. Each Dealer was expected to sell 100 cars annually. The Dealer had to have their own Showroom and signage for Imperial. Each car was built on Imperial Only assembly line and every worker had to have at least 25 Years of experience at Chrysler Corporation to even qualify to work the Imperial line. Chrysler Corp went all out on this car. Sadly, the confusion about the dealers is what really hurt this car. A person who didn't call the one 800 number to find the dealer would have gone to a Chrysler Plymouth dealer and end up in a Cordoba or Fifth Avenue. The limited number of dealers is really what hurt this car.
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 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 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.
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 !!
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!
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.
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.
HI Adam, You're the only other person I know on earth who uses the word 'sybaritic'. I like the Seville. The back and sides, roof and door lines are actually superb. It is the chunky, brutal front end that leaves something to be desired. The rear end reminds of the great Hooper-bodied RRs and Bentleys of the early 50s. The Imperial attempts this look and fails miserably. The Imperial looked to much like an angular Cordoba, though the grill itself was indeed lovely and spare. The Lincoln never satisfied. It looked stiff and stuffy from its introduction day and it was painful to watch wealthy ladies trying to climb out of the back seat, despite their chauffeurs standing alert with the door open. Sad. If I was allowed only these cars as a buying choice, the Seville would have to win. The Imperial -- so stunning beautiful in the mid and late 1960s -- just looks cheap. The Lincoln was the only choice left for those with no touch of daring. I can understand the choice, but have always found this model year displeasingly angular with alot of cheap fake chrome cladding. Awful! Thanks for the great video!
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.
Boy, that rear end treatment sure killed the Seville, what were they thinking? Seems like the Lincoln had the only reliable power plant. Was the cylinder deactivation feature easily disabled on the Seville? Great format for sure
Yes, merely disconnecting a single wire from the high-gear switch on the tranny locked it in 8-cylinder mode... I simply ran mine through a switch on the dashboard so I could choose it at will...
I really like the comparison videos. You may want to throw in at the end brief mentions of the available foreign competition. It would show how eventually these brands lost their luster. For instance in this one the brand new Mercedes S class was available, in either 300SD, 300SDL, 380SE and 380SEL. Arguably that Mercedes dominated the aspirational luxury car market for the next decade. If not in pure sales in the US, definitely in aspiration. GM and Ford could not come close to producing a viable competitor and Chrysler by then was stuck putting 5th Avenue trim on Dodge Diplomat pigs.
@@jimmya2578 I agree that the Mercedes was more expensive, but the point I was making is that the Seville was the best Cadillac made. The Fleetwood Brougham was actually cheaper. Therefore if you were looking for the standard of the world it was no longer an American brand. But the durability of the Mercedes (especially the OM617) was so substantial that most buyers would drive them for 8 years or more. In that regard they were far better value than any of the American luxury cars.
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.
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
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.
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.
The 1980 Cadillac Seville was a huge design mistake. WAY too baroque and blingy compared to the contemporary 2976-79 version. GM: defeat grabbed from the jaws of victory.
Hello Adam. Where and how did you get that photo of McNamara Pontiac in Orlando Fla.? My family (including me) worked there in the 1960s-70s! I'd love to get a copy of this photo (and any others you might have of McNamara Pontiac) if possible. Can you let me know. Great videos btw.
environment and gas regulations killed AMERICANS cars company's but they had 28 years to do something about low horse power V8 from 1972 to 2000 before jerman and Japanese came they could save their company's if they just work harder
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.
Rich neighbors had a BEAUTIFUL Lincoln Mark VI in yellow w navy vinyl roof. I was friends with the daughter and she said it was a P.O.S. in terms of reliability. They traded for a 1982 Caddy Seville Diesel.
In this era, Detroit built blingy baroque Louis XIV land yachts, while consumers headed for German performance sedans. The Big Three would lose several generations of buyers to foreign competition between 1973 and 2004 (The Detroit Dark Ages) that would never come back.
“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.
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.
The 8-6-4 engine was riddled with problems, and was abandoned after the first year. It was a nice idea, but the fuel savings were perhaps half of what Cadillac advertised, and drivers experienced lurching, with the transmission endlessly searching for the correct gear at certain speeds, and Cadillac lost a ton of customers due to this engine. The diesel was sluggish and had a noticeable clack-clack-clack sound. These two engines were a radical departure from the smooth, powerful 429, 472 (and 500-cubic inch, 400 hp, 530 lb-ft torque) variants of the late 60s and 70s that, up until 1970 proved to be powerful and offered spirited driving for some cars that weighed close to 5,000 pounds. The 1970 Sedan deVille went 0-60 in just under 11 seconds!
Sinatra-edition Imperial: powder blue with blue interior to honour "Ol' Blue Eyes" Frank. Based on a modified Chrysler mid-size platform, Imperial drew complaints for non-luxury ride over bumps - e.g. at rail crossings.
Ive heard if you wish to retain the Imperial's fuel injection, have 2 fuel filters check regularly, and always use premium gas. 87 octane makes them sputter.
Both the Caddy and the Mopar were attempting approaches to fuel economy that were ahead of their time, but simply way too much for the relatively primitive on-board computers and "kluged" vacuum controls that never quite worked. I'd say had Chrysler simply stuck to the 360 cube V8 with a four-barrel carb, they'd have gotten more than adequate performance (it was also the top engine available in the R-bodies which were last sold in the '81 model year, more leftover 1980 production models that hadn't sold) and there's no reason the better engine could not have fit in the engine bay. As for Cadillac...what were they THINKING?
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.
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.
How did you learn about the Imperial 81 only, seat cushion? Only reason i know is because I’ve owned 3 1981s over the years. Did you ever own an imperial? Also one of my 81s was an FS edition WITH EFI was entertaining to say the least. Strangely, it was an 81 with leather seating WITHOUT the lower seat cushion! Weird huh? Also the cloth seating i find, is way more comfortable and MUCH more durable than the leather in these cars
Ok,so you pick the impossible combination of all three??? Obviously the Mark VI is the best of that group.Caddy horrible style,terrible engines.Imperial,let's face it that era the Chrysler's were junk.I like your videos but I'm let down that you didnt make a choice.
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.
I couldn't afford a new Volkswagen in 1981. but if I wanted and could afford one of these cars, and knew what I know today, the Lincoln would've been my choice. GM and Chrysler are still having reliability problems with the cylinder deactivation on their recent pickups - bad enough that owners are having those systems deactivated!
The Lincoln is just an ugly, blocky, boring car. The Cadillac and Imperial look stunning from outside, but looking at the interior from the driver's seat, I'd take the Imperial! What an awesome car!
