The common critique is that Cadillac is 'focusing on sportiness/performance when their background is giant, marshmallowy floats'.
And I think that people often misunderstand what made Cadillac a great brand in those days. Simply making Cadillac's sofas for the road is hardly the point. Rather, it was the style, technology, and luxury that were so memorable. THAT to me is what needed to return. I'd be all for something comfortable but controlled, not Town Car mushy nor BMW firm.
That's definitely when things accelerated faster in the wrong direction.
Based on the common metric on this board, the downsized deVilles & Fleetwoods were a crushing success (huge sales) and spawned emulation across the segment.
Yes, but I think those who employ that aspect alone are mistaken, particularly in situations such as this one. Lincoln and Cadillac were still among the top selling luxury brands way, way into the 90s. These things often take time. Same reason I've been critical about modern BMWs and their deviation away from being BMW. They're doing fine now, but things don't fall apart immediately. To an extent Jaguar was in a similar predicament around this time. By the 90s when Ford acquired them Jaguar was outdated, catered to a bygone era (in all the wrong ways), and was hardly competitive with many of its peers. They continued that way throughout basically all of the Ford era, until they finally righted things as Ford got rid of them (XF). The Deville through DTS was a sales success, but it was hardly a strong competitor against a Lexus LS for example (except maybe briefly regarding the early years of the 2000 gen Deville). The problem of course was not that it wasn't a sport sedan. That'd be a pointless endeavor anyway. It was not a car that could maintain success and still be an enviable car in the sense that a 7-Series or such was a car that people looked up to AND sold well. That car made people want a BMW. The Deville mostly retained existing customers. Retention is important, but so is longevity.
I have no idea where you get this opinion from. Eldorado was a monstrous coupe basically in a 7-yr old body shell by '78, and the subsequent '79 was a masterful design that again was widely acclaimed and did very well in the market.
Personally I don't find it as stylish and elegant as I'd like for a big Eldorado, but that's JMO. This is a far fetched comparison, but I'd say the most similar example I can think of today is the Bentley Continental. It sells well because it's an entry Bentley; that's a given. But as a car, it doesn't say "Bentley" to me as loudly as it should. It seems too German, particularly compared to the newer Mulsanne. Bentleys can be modern and all. Tradition as even I have implied before, can be misapplied. But its approach to luxury motoring is more German than British. Rolls-Royce did not make this mistake with their entry Roller, the Ghost. I'd have preferred something with the flair of older Eldorados (on a smaller scale, of course).
The series of engine missteps (V8-6-4 and the diesels, plus the 'J-car') hammered many quick succesion nails into Cadillac that it long struggled to dislodge. Then you get the Stage II downsizing in '85-86, which was way too much to bear. 1976: 8.2L > 1986: 4.1L. Sigh.
:yup:
Ford wasn't competing with Mercedes - it was just advertising to show that a European-style and -sized vehicle could be had for a lot less money. If I'm not mistaken, the Granada was merely a rebodied Maverick, so kudos to Ford for seeing an opportunity and exploiting it with a platform that was likely amortized already (read: profit-per-unit likely larger than average).
Yep.
Not sure if the Granada was a rebadged Maverick or the other way around. The Versailles if given a significantly different look might have been more successful. Just one of the many missteps Lincoln themselves was making at the time. Oh, the 80s.
No, not really innovative, as you say, but what were you expecting for 1977 Detroit?
That's exactly the problem, I think.
Insufficient compared to what? Ironically, it grew, and it was given a slightly different role (no longer the Merc-fighter). To my eyes, just an update on the Great American Luxury Car.
It's similar to the 2005 STS and 1976 Seville I mentioned. Hardly bad cars, but they didn't move the needle enough either, even if they did represent a change in direction at Cadillac. We may simply disagree on that. But to be clear, I would absolutely say it was a better effort than virtually any other 80s Cadillac project that reached production.
Good point. The ATS would be its spiritual successor (with the first CTS playing that role earlier). But I don't think the Cadillac view of luxury was such that they would have considered an "edgier, sportier Cadillac." Today, of course, is a different story.
Sportier shouldn't be taken into a simply European sport sedan context. Edgier in style, I say, because the European and Asian competitors and their climbing market share differed in that they were generally restrained designs. A Cadillac should have looked flashier and more emotional. And competing with them on dynamics was probably possible from an engineering standpoint (as it sure is today) given the right platform, but again I think that's pointless. Sportiness in the American sense had long since been defined by a powerful engine. I'm not saying that they needed to drop in the V-8 from a Vette, but something that would generate a little excitement, plus a more volume oriented engine or two.
I'm not remotely seeing it, brother. Two unstaged, broad-daylight candid shots :
I can't say it's fact or anything as it's simply my opinion. Something is just more regal about the Ford.
In black it's just very elegant to me:
