mmcartalk
Expert
- Messages
- 4,155
- Reactions
- 2,675
MM Retro Write-Up: 1982 Cadillac Cimarron
IN A NUTSHELL: Overly-hated by the automotive press and historians, but I did not think it was that bad a design.
Throughout automotive history, there have been a number of vehicles that simply fell flat on their face as soon as they were introduced, were roundly-panned by the automotive press, and never really got a chance from a skeptical public. Classic examples are the Pontiac Aztek (which I recently did a write-up on), Acura ZDX (although I thought the ZDX's roofline and rear end was ridiculous), and Mazda Millenia (which was supposed to be introduced as an upscale-division Amati product, but ended up being sold as a Mazda...and I found it rather unimpressive compared to its Lexus ES competition).
And another one, of course, is the poor Cimarron.....Cadillac's first attempt to do a compact luxury-sedan, though a mid-sized attempt several years earlier, with the Seville, targeting the (at the time) increasingly-popular Mercedes E-Class. But, unlike the Cimarron, the Seville turned out to be reasonably successful, except for the disastrous Oldmobile-sourced 5.7L diesel V8 version (that later was the subject of a class-action suit) and the ungainly rear end on the 1980 model.
I never owned a Cimarron (too many shortcomings in the power train), but I checked it out, and did a fairly long test-drive. I don't remember exactly, but I think the one I sampled was white one with a red leather interior. The drivetrain was a joke (more about that in a minute), but I actually liked the Interior, general layout, 3-spoke steering steering wheel, and general design theme. It was, IMO, a very attractive small car inside and out....something that I thought was being overlooked by the press and reviewers.
The Cimarron's origin was in the GM "J"-Body platform, which also gave us the Chevy Cavalier, Buick Skyhawk, Oldsmobile Firenza, and Pontiac J2000/Sunbird. As such, it shared, with them, the anemic carbonated 88 HP 1.8L in-line four, which was slow enough in its lighter brothers, but, in the heavier Cimarron (which came standard with substantially more trim and equipment), couldn't outrun a snail....on my test-drive, I could have walked back to the dealership quicker. Later, a larger, fuel-injected 2.0L four and 2.8L V6 were added.....I probably should have taken another look at them, but by then, I was happy driving Mazdas, and Cadillac, by then, had changed to a quirky digital dash and unattractive two-spoke steering wheel for the Cimarron.
Style-wise, though, inside and outside, IMO, this car was anything but a joke, and, if it had had a decent engine at first, I personally think it would have made good competition for smaller entry-level upscale products from Europe. I found the car pleasing to look at, pleasing to sit inside, pleasant-riding for something that size, and decent road manners.......as long, of course, as you weren't in a hurry to get where you were going. It had much of the ornateness of larger Cadillacs inside, but in a small, nimble, easy-to-park exterior size, and (except for the larger Cadillac' diesel engine) generally a lot better gas mileage....on regular 87 octane fuel. Yes, this car cost substantially more than its smaller J-Body cousins, but there was a reason for it...except for the joke of a power-train, you were getting what IMO was more of a downsized Cadillac than an upscale Chevy.
Unfortunately, at the time, the automotive press did not see it that way. Despite the obvious shortcomings of the early-version's drive train, they panned the entire car, bumper-to-bumper, unfairly, IMO. And, by this time, though not to the level of today, the auto press and reviewers were becoming somewhat more influential with the public and its auto-buying decisions. So, despite GM's later efforts to address the engine shortcomings, and refresh the vehicle with new trim-level options, the Cimarron was born a pariah, lived a pariah, and, in the late 1980s, died a pariah. A later attempt by Cadillac to do a smaller luxury-sedan (the Opel-sourced Catera) also proved unsuccessful, was quite unreliable, and, unlike the Cimarron, had what IMO was an unimpressive cheaply-done interior. I test-drove a Catera, and, like its Saturn L-series brother which came off the same platform, was poorly-built, had assembly-defects, and creaked and rattled on the road....but those are subjects for another write-up.
Perhaps what the Cimarron was trying to accomplish (a credible entry-level upmarket/luxury sedan) was finally done in 2012, under the Buick nameplate instead of Cadillac, when Buick introduced the Verano. Like the Catera, the Verano was Opel-sourced but, with the exception of the Verano's oil-using 2.4L four, was FAR more solidly-built, and was a lot-better-received by the auto press (Donald Trump himself, before he was President, liked the Verano, and appeared in a commercial for it). I, of course, owned a Verano for some five years, and did a write-up on it.
And, as Always, Happy-Car-Memories.
MM
IN A NUTSHELL: Overly-hated by the automotive press and historians, but I did not think it was that bad a design.
Throughout automotive history, there have been a number of vehicles that simply fell flat on their face as soon as they were introduced, were roundly-panned by the automotive press, and never really got a chance from a skeptical public. Classic examples are the Pontiac Aztek (which I recently did a write-up on), Acura ZDX (although I thought the ZDX's roofline and rear end was ridiculous), and Mazda Millenia (which was supposed to be introduced as an upscale-division Amati product, but ended up being sold as a Mazda...and I found it rather unimpressive compared to its Lexus ES competition).
And another one, of course, is the poor Cimarron.....Cadillac's first attempt to do a compact luxury-sedan, though a mid-sized attempt several years earlier, with the Seville, targeting the (at the time) increasingly-popular Mercedes E-Class. But, unlike the Cimarron, the Seville turned out to be reasonably successful, except for the disastrous Oldmobile-sourced 5.7L diesel V8 version (that later was the subject of a class-action suit) and the ungainly rear end on the 1980 model.
I never owned a Cimarron (too many shortcomings in the power train), but I checked it out, and did a fairly long test-drive. I don't remember exactly, but I think the one I sampled was white one with a red leather interior. The drivetrain was a joke (more about that in a minute), but I actually liked the Interior, general layout, 3-spoke steering steering wheel, and general design theme. It was, IMO, a very attractive small car inside and out....something that I thought was being overlooked by the press and reviewers.
The Cimarron's origin was in the GM "J"-Body platform, which also gave us the Chevy Cavalier, Buick Skyhawk, Oldsmobile Firenza, and Pontiac J2000/Sunbird. As such, it shared, with them, the anemic carbonated 88 HP 1.8L in-line four, which was slow enough in its lighter brothers, but, in the heavier Cimarron (which came standard with substantially more trim and equipment), couldn't outrun a snail....on my test-drive, I could have walked back to the dealership quicker. Later, a larger, fuel-injected 2.0L four and 2.8L V6 were added.....I probably should have taken another look at them, but by then, I was happy driving Mazdas, and Cadillac, by then, had changed to a quirky digital dash and unattractive two-spoke steering wheel for the Cimarron.
Style-wise, though, inside and outside, IMO, this car was anything but a joke, and, if it had had a decent engine at first, I personally think it would have made good competition for smaller entry-level upscale products from Europe. I found the car pleasing to look at, pleasing to sit inside, pleasant-riding for something that size, and decent road manners.......as long, of course, as you weren't in a hurry to get where you were going. It had much of the ornateness of larger Cadillacs inside, but in a small, nimble, easy-to-park exterior size, and (except for the larger Cadillac' diesel engine) generally a lot better gas mileage....on regular 87 octane fuel. Yes, this car cost substantially more than its smaller J-Body cousins, but there was a reason for it...except for the joke of a power-train, you were getting what IMO was more of a downsized Cadillac than an upscale Chevy.
Unfortunately, at the time, the automotive press did not see it that way. Despite the obvious shortcomings of the early-version's drive train, they panned the entire car, bumper-to-bumper, unfairly, IMO. And, by this time, though not to the level of today, the auto press and reviewers were becoming somewhat more influential with the public and its auto-buying decisions. So, despite GM's later efforts to address the engine shortcomings, and refresh the vehicle with new trim-level options, the Cimarron was born a pariah, lived a pariah, and, in the late 1980s, died a pariah. A later attempt by Cadillac to do a smaller luxury-sedan (the Opel-sourced Catera) also proved unsuccessful, was quite unreliable, and, unlike the Cimarron, had what IMO was an unimpressive cheaply-done interior. I test-drove a Catera, and, like its Saturn L-series brother which came off the same platform, was poorly-built, had assembly-defects, and creaked and rattled on the road....but those are subjects for another write-up.
Perhaps what the Cimarron was trying to accomplish (a credible entry-level upmarket/luxury sedan) was finally done in 2012, under the Buick nameplate instead of Cadillac, when Buick introduced the Verano. Like the Catera, the Verano was Opel-sourced but, with the exception of the Verano's oil-using 2.4L four, was FAR more solidly-built, and was a lot-better-received by the auto press (Donald Trump himself, before he was President, liked the Verano, and appeared in a commercial for it). I, of course, owned a Verano for some five years, and did a write-up on it.
And, as Always, Happy-Car-Memories.
MM
