Okay, let's talk about the Cadillac Cimarron

[Bruce Nunnally]

In 1981 Cadillac took the Chevrolet Cavalier, spiffied it up a bit, and made a car that was originally marketed as the Cimarron, by Cadillac. At first the marketing guys said it's not a REAL Cadillac, it's a car done BY Cadillac. Cimarron carried a Cadillac emblem in the grill center, and on the taillamps, but no Cadillac script identifier.

The conversion was a quick job. Hydraulic dampers were added to help the ride. A Cadillac tuned touring suspension was added, along with custom wheels and tires. A long list of luxury features was available. The resulting car looked more or less just like a Chevrolet Cavalier, but was a Cimarron. It had a 1.8L four cylinder engine making 88 hp.

Sales in the first year were over 25K Cimarrons. This was about half what Cadillac was hoping for, but was also more than the Seville sold that year. In 1986 Cadillac added a 2.6L V6 optiion which helped a lot on power. Production of the Cimarron ran through 1988. In the last year, sales were down to just over 6K units.

So what went wrong with the Cimarron?

a) people remember it as a worse failure than it was

the base model it was developed from, the Chevrolet Cavalier, was not a great car to start with. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

c) Cadillac is about performance and luxury. The Cimarron added luxury features to the Cavalier but the result was not high enough performance or high enough luxury.

My Mom has a Cadillac Cimarron along the way, and liked it. She had some issue with it as I recall -- a noise from the front suspension or something similar. But she wanted a car that was more economical, and the size worked for her, and she liked the luxury features. The point is for their target market, the Cimarron did ring a chord with some buyers.

[ted tcb]

You'd think GM would've learned something from the original Seville vs Versailles sales dual.

The Seville was a downsized Cadillac, built on the Nova chassis. It was a complete restyle, offering

technical advances that you just could not get in a Nova. A 350ci. engine, Bendix/Bosch fuel injection,

1,000 lbs lighter than a Deville, and styling that set the standards for Detroit luxury cars for the next decade.

Fuel injection was a huge plus in 1975, when emission regulations resulted in some very real driveability issues

on carbureted cars.

The Seville even offered a trip computer for the 1979 model.

It was a smash hit.

The Seville was launched in mid 1975, so GM had six years to learn from their success before launching the Cimarron.

In 1977, Lincoln answered with the Versailles.

Unlike the Seville/Nova restyle, the Versailles looked identical to a cheap Granada.

It came with a stock 351ci. carburated motor ... the only styling change from the Granada was a longer

padded roof and phony spare tire bulge.

The Seville outsold the Versailles by a 3-to-1 ratio in 1977.

I always felt the Cimarron would've performed better if GM had applied a similar formula learned from the Seville.

Style the body with some unique sheetmetal, and give the car some technological differences.

It looked just like a Cavalier, and suffered the same fate as the Lincoln Versailles.

When Lexus needed an entry level car to bring people into their new showrooms, they launched the ES250.

It looked just like the Camry it was based on, and was largely ignored.

Late in 1991, Lexus restyled the car completely, renamed it the ES300, and sales took off ... even though the same basic

car could be had for thousands less as the Camry XLE V6.

The Cimarron was a good idea, but the small design budget hampered it's success.

[jackc]

My mom had one of the later Cimarrons. It was actually a pretty nice car. The interior was well-appointed and the 2.8 V6 gave it a surprising amount of pep. My dad was always impressed by how well that car ran! Exterior styling in the later models was also pretty good, although its Cavalier roots were apparent.

The thing that probably hurt the Cimarron the most was the lack of a V6 option in the early models. This was definitely a car that got better as time went by.

I agree completely about the failure to apply the advances that led to the success of the early Seville. That car remains one of my all-time-favorites.

[MrEldo97]

That GM model family was generally a toilet on 4 wheels, IMHO.

My wife owned a 1986 Buick Skyhawk that we bought new in 1986.

After this experience we drove Italian Alfa Romeos for 10 years...

After 3 years the rust was sooo bad I had to sell the car for parts only!

The last straw was one morning she opened the car driver's door to go to work and the door latch pulled

right through the rotted door and remained attached to the catch on the door post.

I drove her to work, put a "For Sale" sign with "For Parts Only" on it and bought a nice red Alfa Milano.

I got 200 bucks for the motor, the rest of it disintegrated into iron oxide...

[Ed Hall]

The thing that probably hurt the Cimarron the most was the lack of a V6 option in the early models. This was definitely a car that got better as time went by.

They should have at least put in the 135 hp HT4100 V8 engine. The car would have been less gutless.

[Dasher]

With the only Cimarron that I knew anything about, the big issue was RUST!

A neighbor owned it and you could see it rust right before your eyes. It rusted faster

than a Vega, which held the world's speed record for rusting up to that time.

[MrEldo97]

To be sure, the Skyhawk (same basic model) my wife and I had rusted completely to trash

before the payments were finished! That was it in our family for American cars for the next decade.

I'd never seen a rust problem even come close to the problem we had with that car.

The doors were completely rusted through on the bottom after the car's second winter.

I remember hearing at the time that GM didn't put drains in the bottoms of the doors. I couldn't confirm

if that were true or not because the bottoms on the doors in our car were 100% rusted away.

[BodybyFisher]

This was GMs way to offer buyers an option to get better gas mileage. Keep in mind that they were competing with Japanese cars that were getting better and better. GM did not move fast, they were forced to move due to sagging sales.

For me, GM did not make a good car during the 80s, they were in a transition period, where they were learning. They had problems with

Horsepower weak engines

Cross division engine use

Styling was bad

Paint not sticking to galvanized panels

Rusting panels

Unions/strikes

Transmissions (Metric transmission)

Electronics (4/6/8 engine)

The fact is that GM tried to do positive things. As can be seen in this thread, there were people who liked this car. It is the CAR RAGS that hate US cars that ripped it apart and devalued it.

[MrEldo97]

"CAR RAGS that hate US cars that ripped it apart and devalued it"

Excellent point that I completely agree with.

I haven't read any of the car mags for decades now. Totally biased toward Japanese and BMW, and Benz.

They have been since the early '70s.

I used to love reading Road & Track in the '60s and early '70s. Rob Walker's reports on Grand Prix races were brilliant.

As time went on the magazines' bias towards Japanese and European cars became more glaring, they did nothing but road test cars no one could afford to drive, Rob Walker left Formula 1 (he ended up being the last private Formula 1 team owner) and far too many of the drivers I rooted for were killed in absolutely horrid crashes.

Today I read Keith Martin's "Sports Car Market" and "Jaguar World". I wish there were a "Cadillac World"...

[KHE]

The rust issue must have been with that model/carline. I had an '86 Park Avenue that I owne duntil two years ago. When I sold it, the bottoms of the doors were rusted but the rest of the car still looked very good. It looked a hell of a lot better than any 20 year old Japanese car on the road....

[Caddynut]

OK...many of you know that I owned a 1985 Cimarron for about 16 years. My parents bought it in 1987 with 45,000 miles and I ended up with it until December of 2001 when I finally let her go the junk yard with 175,000 miles on it. I do agree that I think GM could have come up with a better plan for the cimarron (especially introduced the V-6 in the beginning). My issues.....it did rust pretty bad on the rockers and doors, and I had quite a few electrical problems with power window wiring breaking in the drivers door. As fas as that little 2.0 liter engine and drive train....it kept running and running and I drove it to the junk yard and cried after I left. It was kind of like letting go an old time friend. Even though it was one of Cadillac's worst ideas, it was one of my most memorable cars I have ever owned. I drove that car across the country from PA to Arizona 3 times (as far as I can remember). I enjoyed the car and even though I had to do a little body work here and there, it was a very good car for me. I finally let it go when it needed a wheel bearing, a rack & pinion, tires, brakes & exhaust. That was more than the car was worth....it was time. Considering I never put a wheel bearing or any front end parts on the car ever, I thought that was pretty good. Parts put on the car in it's life: water pump, radiator, computer, brakes, exhaust, struts, tires, master cylinder and some miscellaneous wiring to repair power windows. That is it. THIS CAR SERVED ME WELL!

[BodybyFisher]

You know, the way this car was presented was that GM just hung sheet metal on a Chevy Monza. There were lots of modifications

[WarrenJ]

c) Cadillac is about performance and luxury. The Cimarron added luxury features to the Cavalier but the result was not high enough performance or high enough luxury.

It lacked luxury. It lacked performance as did many other Caddys of that period. It was a stop-gap measure not well thought out.

The Service Manager at a local Cadillac dealer brought me a Seville when they first arrived. I told him it was "the best looking Chevy Nova I'd ever seen." It was some time before he spoke with me again.

Everyone makes mistakes. But, I'll go to my grave having not forgiven Cadillac for the HT4100.

Regards,

Warren

[Texas Jim]

Everyone makes mistakes. But, I'll go to my grave having not forgiven Cadillac for the HT4100.

Regards,

Warren

I have seen numerous references to how bad the HT4100 was.

Other than being underpowered, what was it's problems?

I bought a leftover 1984 Fleetwood Brougham deElegance just as the 1985's came out. I drove it till 2000 and it was pretty much a trouble free car.

In 15 years and over 150,000 miles, I did very little to it except change oil, put gas in it and drive it. Did have to put one water pump and one fuel pump on it. When I sold it, it had developed a little miss that I couldn't find, but it still looked good and drove great.

Maybe I just got lucky with mine.

[jackc]

After 3 years the rust was sooo bad I had to sell the car for parts only!

Good point. Here in north Texas, we're fortunate to not have rust problems. Our big environmental problem is the scalding sun that will turn the paint to powder and burn out the interiors, rubber parts, etc.

[BodybyFisher]

c) Cadillac is about performance and luxury. The Cimarron added luxury features to the Cavalier but the result was not high enough performance or high enough luxury.

It lacked luxury. It lacked performance as did many other Caddys of that period. It was a stop-gap measure not well thought out.

The Service Manager at a local Cadillac dealer brought me a Seville when they first arrived. I told him it was "the best looking Chevy Nova I'd ever seen." It was some time before he spoke with me again.

Everyone makes mistakes. But, I'll go to my grave having not forgiven Cadillac for the HT4100.

Regards,

Warren

I wouldn't make that statement around KHE, he has a different opinion about the HT4100. I believe its important to put GM's so called 'mistakes' into proper context or perspective. The HT4100 was a lightweight transition engine that led to the 4.9 that led to the Northstar. Of course there are those who will never forgive Cadillac for the Northstar also.

[BodybyFisher]

This was a stop gap car developed NOT to be a luxury compact, if you ask me the term "luxury compact" is an oxymoron. Heck, the Allante was a luxury car and it did not fly did it?, how about the XLR, did it fly? GM needed a small fuel efficient car, and it produced one quickly. To Monday morning quarterback that decision without the contextual relavance of the decision is like saying the Torre was responsible for the Yankees failing last year and firing him.

[jackc]

I have seen numerous references to how bad the HT4100 was.

Other than being underpowered, what was it's problems?

The most commonly discussed problem is the tendency of this engine to mix coolant with the oil, leading to sudden, catastrophic engine failure. There were some other issues that were also improved as production went on. Your late 84 would have been better than the first 82's.

I've also seen discussion that Cadillac didn't intend initially for this engine to be used in the big heavy cars. It was rushed into service because of the problems with the 8-6-4. In many cases, it was probably overloaded.

I too had a 4100 car - an 83 Eldo. It was a wonderful car, though underpowered. Never had any engine problems.

[KHE]

I have seen numerous references to how bad the HT4100 was.

Other than being underpowered, what was it's problems?

I bought a leftover 1984 Fleetwood Brougham deElegance just as the 1985's came out. I drove it till 2000 and it was pretty much a trouble free car.

In 15 years and over 150,000 miles, I did very little to it except change oil, put gas in it and drive it. Did have to put one water pump and one fuel pump on it. When I sold it, it had developed a little miss that I couldn't find, but it still looked good and drove great.

Maybe I just got lucky with mine.

Everyone knows my positive stories about the HT-4100 so I'll leave that chapter out... Other than being underpowered, it wasn't that bad of an engine. The HT-4100 had wet cylinder liners with o-rings at the top and bottom of the cylinder sleeve that could develop leaks that would cause the coolant to get into the oil. That is why the cooling system pellets were manditory in that engine as well as the 4.5 and 4.9 engines.

There were some initial issues with the '82 model HT-4100s - I believe the oil pan size was increased for '83 but that's been so long ago I can't remember. The '84 and '85 RWD HT-4100s were better than the '82 version. Each year HT-4100 was improved over the previous year due to advancements in gasketing technology, etc.

[WarrenJ]

Heck, the Allante was a luxury car and it did not fly did it? . . .

Allante bodies were flown to the U.S.A. from Pininfarina in Italy. How many other cars can you say that about? Sorry, just couldn't resist. :D

Regards,

Warren

[WarrenJ]

Everyone knows my positive stories about the HT-4100 so I'll leave that chapter out... Other than being underpowered, it wasn't that bad of an engine.

I had endless problems with the HT4100 in my '83 Coupe d'Elegance before it eventually ate itself (block fracture at front of camshaft).

In those days it was difficult to find an experienced replacement engine, but I fortunately "knew someone who knew someone" and got the job done. The good folk at July Auto Wrecking installed a replacement engine for me. Except for the curious cleanliness of the engine compartment you'd never have suspected an engine replacement. It ran like pure (underpowered) silk.

The fellow who bought the car from me made regular round trips to Canada. He had over 250,000 miles on the car when I last spoke with him and he claimed it was the finest used car he'd ever purchased.

So there you have it: same car, two different owners; one aggrieved, one joyful.

I once drove a Cimarron. Mom always reminded me to remain quiet if I had nothing good to say. A shut mouth catches no flies, said she.

I can't quite recall the interesting/humorous story wherein a Cadillac Executive explains why there's a Cimarron photo on his office wall. If anyone recalls it or can link to it I'd be appreciative.

Regards,

Warren

[ted tcb]

I never owned a Cimarron, but I did own a 1988 Sunbird. I actually like it for what it was ... cheap transportation.

Adding leather, rims, and extra toys didn't make that car an entry level luxury cruiser.

I did own two 1985 Maximas ... a luxury GLE, and a sporty 5spd SE. Both of those cars competed with the Cimarron,

but they were world's better. The NVH levels were subdued, the car was fast for its time, Ward's listed the 3L V6 as one

of the world's 10 best, and it was rock solid reliable.

Nice to see how things have changed ... Cadillac's current entry level sedan, the CTS, is now at the head of its class.

I would kill to own a 2009 CTS in deep red, with a beige interior. The new Maxima ... to me, it lost its leadership role

20 years ago.