"Malaise Era" is used often to lump together automobiles made between approximately 1970 and 1990, exact years are debatable. The term, stemming in part from President Jimmy Carter's famous July 15, 1979 "Crisis of Confidence" speech is rather apt as it pertains to automobiles; back then, The Big Three and a Half not knowing whether to, using a phrase my father used often, "shit or go blind" when attempting to comply with federal mandates regarding safety, emissions and fuel economy. In my opinion, few cars sum up America at that time better than this 1980 Cadillac Coupe deVille. A car deeply rooted in tradition whilst struggling to move forward. Just like America at the time.
Downsized originally for model year 1977, Cadillac, along with GM's other divisions, revised their full-sized cars with new, aerodynamic sheet metal for 1980. The results, in my opinion, were arguably mixed. Whereas the update did wonders for the blocky, under-designed Oldsmobile's and Pontiac's, the Cadillacs were left looking bloated and oversized, like someone overweight attempting to stuff themselves into clothing that may have once fit them. It may have worked short term as they appealed to Cadillac's older clientele corn fed on tail fins and the axiom of the size of the car in your driveway denoting your lot in life, but did little to appeal to Baby Boomers maturing into their prime earning years.
Changes were more than skin deep, however. Under their long hoods, to help GM compliance with "Corporate Average Fuel Economy", or "CAFE", for the second time in four years, Cadillac downsized their exclusive engine that had DNA going back to their famous 472-cubic inch V-8 in 1968. Cadillac had increased displacement of the 472 to 500-cubic inches for 1970, with marginal if any improvement in performance, and as part of the Great Downsizing Epoch of 1977, in an effort to make their engine more fuel efficient, redesigned it to displace "just" 425-CID for 1977; it was 100-pounds less heavy too. With 1980 came smaller cylinder bores dropping displacement to 368-CID, the smallest or least large Cadillac engine since the 365-cubic incher of 1955-1958.
The dictionary defines "malaise" as a general feeling of discomfort, illness or uneasiness whose cause it's difficult to identify. If our 1980 Cadillac Coupe deVille gave its owners a feeling of malaise, however, it was easy to determine why; it's new smaller engine was gutless. The Rochester Quadrajet version, like our Coupe deVille here has, lost thirty-horsepower and fifty-five-pound feet of torque compared to the 425 engine it replaced. A fuel injected version, standard on the Eldorado and available on the new-for-1980 Seville, made thirty-five less horsepower, fifty-less foot-pounds.
The loss of chutzpah was readily apparent - a 6.0-liter deVille waltzed from zero-to-sixty in more than 14-seconds, nearly two-seconds slower than a deVille with the 425 engine. Worst was, fuel-economy gains were minimal, approximately 1-to-2-mpg in the real world. The optional Oldsmobile diesel engine provided even more sedate performance although fuel economy was better. All said and done, though, our 1980 Coupe deVille could have had it worse. It could have had the Oldsmobile diesel or the variable displacement, "V-8-6-4" of 1981 infamy.
If your benchmark for what makes an engine "good" is smoothness of operation and dogged reliability, the Cadillac 6.0 was in fact a good engine. However, it's legacy is tarnished as it was the basis for the V-8-6-4, one of the worst engines General Motors ever manufactured.
On one hand, the V-8-6-4 was a good idea. Operating on four-, six- or eight-cylinders based on driving conditions, throttle input and load, running on fewer cylinders, in theory at least, would use less fuel, and the engine would provide all the performance of an 8-cylinder engine when called upon to do so. Again, that's relative given the lack of beans the 6.0-liter, non-V-8-6-4 had.
What's vexing, especially in retrospect, was Cadillac thinking they were up to the task of building a computer-controlled mechanism that could finagle all the real-world scenarios the V-8-6-4 would encounter. Computer controlled engine technology was in its infancy at the time and even on engines without the complexity of variable displacement. ran poorly. To think it up to the task of controlling the V-8-6-4 akin to believing your athletically gifted ten-year-old ready for the major leagues. Even today, the best of variable displacement engines don't operate with the seamlessness of conventional engines and they operate, typically, between just two modes, the V-8-6-4, herked, jerked, hemmed, hawed and shuddered between three modes.
Many if not most buyers opted to have the system bypassed and\or, the fuel-injection system replaced with a good old Quadrajet. Find a 1981 Cadillac for sale with a working V-8-6-4 system and you've found a unicorn. You've been warned.
In a case of the cure worse than the ailment, Cadillac replaced the V-8-6-4 with what they called the "HT4100", 4.1-liter V-8 for 1982. Originally developed to power the front-wheel-drive replacements for deVilles and Fleetwoods, the "High Tech 4100" had its own myriad issues. It blew out head gaskets, oil pumps failed without notice leading to cataclysmic engine failure not to mention teething issues inherent with its primitive electronic engine controls. Pity the Cadillac buyers whose "HT" blew up outside the warranty window. Same for buyers of Olds diesel and "V-8-6-4" powered Cadillacs.
If you need more evidence about just how "Malaise-y" Cadillacs were back then, for 1981 and 1982, the best engine option for buyers who had to have a Cadillac was Buick's 252-cubic inch, or 4.1-liter, V-6. Making all of 125-hp and 205-foot pounds, at least it didn't dynamite itself like the V-8-6-4, the HT and the diesel did. Our '80 Coupe deVille must have seemed like a car from the "good old days" to buyers of any rear-wheel-drive deVille up through 1984.
Due in large part to product execution and planning gaffes, not hard to fathom why Cadillac's share of the luxury car market shrank from 31-percent in 1980 to just 22 by 1990; it's just 7-percent today. Granted, Cadillac faced and faces a competitive landscape they hadn't seriously had to deal with in the '50's, '60's and '70's, but still, don't give Cadillac a hall pass for error on top of error they made back in the '80's. As a fan of the brand, especially pre-1977 models, it was like watching a friend or relative down on their luck not being able to help themselves. In the 1980's, BMW and Mercedes Benz executives must have been like, "it can't be this easy".
No comments:
Post a Comment