Over at Driven to Write, jm2 (2025) recently offered a spirited defense of the first-generation Cadillac Seville. He called it a “shining star” that would “become a benchmark and gain the significance of an icon — one that would change the face of design in North America.”
This is a well-argued essay, yet I find myself holding back from joining the parade. I wonder whether one reason why is that my automotive sensibilities have been heavily informed by living almost all of my life on the West Coast.
By 1975 imports made up almost 40 percent of car sales in Pacific Coast states (McElroy, 1981; Table 50). That was almost four times the percentage as rustbelt states such as Michigan (McElroy, 1981; Table 47).
My anecdotal sense was that this translated into high-priced brands such as Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Jaguar sometimes achieving greater stature than their domestic counterparts. At least this was the case among the young car enthusiasts I knew, who tended to view Cadillac as a maker of lumbering land yachts driven by little old ladies with pink hair and matching poodle.
The higher status of imports was heavily grounded in their greater focus on advanced engineering — and roadworthiness. So when the Seville was introduced, my biggest question was whether it had the technical chops to compete head to head. Alas, there’s only so much you can do with a Chevrolet Nova platform, so no independent rear suspension or four-wheel disc brakes.
That brings us to the Seville’s styling. To my eyes it was a competent design that has withstood the test of time better than the second-generation “bustleback” models. General Motors also deserves credit for investing more resources into the first Seville than Ford did with its badge-engineered Lincoln Versailles.
Where I part company with jm2 is with his contention that the 1975 Seville was iconic. For all of its charms, the car still reflected the malaise of the brougham era.
Upright C-pillar was too gimmicky and derivative
The idea of a compact Cadillac was so alien to the luxury-car brand that Richard M. Langworth and Jan P. Norbye called the Seville “astonishing.” They went on to describe the car as having “unflamboyant, European-like styling” (1986, p. 336).
It’s true that the Seville looked more understated than a big Cadillac, but I think it was a stretch to describe it as European.
A key reason why was the unusually upright C-pillar. Their severe angularity is arguably closest to the American neo-classical school of design. This certainly made the Seville stand out, but it was just as gimmicky here as it was when used on the Stutz Blackhawk (go here for further discussion).
Indeed, the Seville’s roofline arguably worked less well than the Stutz’s because a four-door body style gave it more awkward proportions. I also suspect that aerodynamics were problematic. Shouldn’t a car with “international” flavor depart more from Detroit’s usual emphasis on form over function?
One could argue that it made no sense for Cadillac to directly compete against Mercedes — and that it should tilt more toward a luxury vibe. In addition, if Cadillac was worried that a compact would cheapen the brand, why not imitate what was commonly viewed as the most prestigious car in the world?
The downside of such a gambit was the Rolls Royce Silver Shadow had one of the oldest designs in the western world. Although it had iconic qualities such a radiator grille and an upright C-pillar, it was still a rather austere and archaic look. Not the ideal car to even sort-of imitate if GM sought to create a new design benchmark. And why was Cadillac — the self-described “standard of the world” — copying someone else?
GM’s compact body gave Seville old-school proportions
Even if you ignore the C-pillar, the Seville was still old-school in its basic proportions. This was because it was loosely based on GM’s compact platform — which was unusually old for a high-volume U.S. passenger car. The basic body was last given a substantial redesign in 1968. Back then long cowls and swept-back beltlines and greenhouses were more in vogue.
That wasn’t the case anymore — at least in Europe. By the mid-70s Mercedes, BMW and Jaguar had all gravitated to variations on the “wedge” shape. Here was a key way that the Seville reflected an American retro design language rather than what was trendy internationally.
One could argue that GM designers deserve extra points for making the best of an old platform, but that’s not the same thing as suggesting that the Seville represented a new benchmark. If anything, it was a stylistic dead end in an era where space efficiency and aerodynamics would be increasingly important.
The Seville pulled in two different directions
Another weakness of the Seville’s styling was its lack of brand DNA. Aside from an eggcrate grille and a subtle peak in the hood, the car’s exterior was strikingly generic. For example, the taillights and wheel openings could have just as easily been used on an Oldsmobile.
One might give GM credit for avoiding baroque flourishes such as thrust-forward fender blades like on the Eldorado, but the Seville’s fascia was basically a bunch of rectangles . . . that would end up looking remarkably similar to many other American cars in the second half of the 1970s.
That doesn’t strike me as iconic, but rather lacking in imagination for a brand which had an unusually good track record of maintaining its design individuality.
Perhaps part of the problem was that designers were trying too hard to counteract the automaker’s recent stylistic excesses.
“We put round wheel openings on because we’ve overdone wheel openings recently and we avoided kooky taillights,” head designer William Mitchell told Motor Trend magazine. “We felt like we were designing for someone with very conservative tastes, the kind who doesn’t change his lapels with every new fashion” (Ludvigsen, 1975; p. 58).
Motor Trend’s article about the Seville was mostly positive, but writer Karl Ludvigsen suggested that “grand exterior styling” was not matched by its interior.
For example, a “simple instrument cluster has only a speedometer and gas gauge, and resembles a smaller version of the normal Cadillac dash.” In addition, there were “none of the map pockets, cubbyholes and other conveniences that make a luxury import such a pleasure to drive over long distances” (1975, p. 60).
In short, the Seville wasn’t so much a direct competitor to Mercedes as it was a smaller car for previous Cadillac owners. That raises the question: Why didn’t designers make the Seville look as much like a Cadillac on the outside as they did on the inside?’
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- m2; 2025. “The Hissing of Summer Lawns: Part II.” Driven to Write. Posted March 15.
- Langworth, Richard M. and Jan P. Norbye; 1986. The Complete History of General Motors 1908-1986. Publications International, Skokie, IL.
- Ludvigsen, Karl; 1975. “Cadillac’s 1976 Seville The Big Gamble.” Motor Trend. May issue: pp. 52-
- McElroy, James R.; 1981. “Automotive Trade Statistics 1964-80.” U.S. International Trade Commission. Series B Passenger Automobiles. No. 1023 published in December.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- autohistorypreservationsociety.org: Mercedes-Benz (1979)
- oldcaradvertising.com: Cadillac Seville (1975)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Buick Century (1973); Cadillac Seville (1975, 1976); Mercury Monarch (1977); Rambler (1963)
I’ve been following links about the senior Packard and luxury cars, etc. This was you could say the second European invasion, the first 20 years earlier with small, inexpensive and well made compacts. The second one with the cars you mentioned. They brought styling up to date, got styling up to date, went high tech, and had interiors that looked like airliner cockpits or English clubs instead of French bordellos. Compare the instrument panels. Something is needed to draw the passenger’s eye, that is something besides the parts bin air vents. Now in the first invasion GM at least got creative, Chrysler got true Euro and advanced, and Ford made a little Ford. Which one was the best seller? Lesson learned? Just take what you got and make it smaller. It probably would have helped to git it the blade style taillights
Premise:
From the 1930s and onto the early 1960s the full-size American car underwent drastic changes in terms of proportions, and elements such as fenders and headlights merged with the main body.
Now, in the 1970s and 1980s GM had a taste for neoclassical styling, be it ” baroque” or “understated” depending on the model. However, my opinion is that cars such as a 1940 Buick Super look SO MUCH BETTER than a 1975 Cadillac Seville or the 1986 GM C-Bodies.
The 1940 Buick Super is to my eyes a very pleasant car, the sort of car I’d drive with a tweed suit and a French language novel in the glovebox. The other two cars I mentioned… I would never drive them, they are simply the polar opposite of where my taste resides.
I agree with everything you suggest about this generation of Seville. I even think the ‘luxury Novas’ of the period presented a more Euro look, in fact. Seville was not Euro or technical; it was simply smaller and plainer than other Cadillacs. To this day I’m astonished they were able to miraculously set the price at the top of the range.
The Seville was, and remains, great. It brought in the sheer look and used subtlety in design treatment – look at the hood with the subtle crease versus the offset surface approach. When the Seville came out it immediately became a common car in the West LA area – Beverly Hills to Santa Monica. Had friends that were buying the Seville rather than the E and S class they would have otherwise chosen (except for those getting the SEL 6.9).
I will agree that the instrument panel should have had an assortment of real gauges and used a floor shift versus the column. But to compare its interior to even a Mercedes of the time, excepting the gauges and floor shift, the MB was actually quite austere. An IRS would have been nice but a well located solid axle wasn’t a terrible solution. It handled pretty decently too. Do remember that in 1975 BMW did not have a V8, nor did the MB E Class. Jag did offer a V12 if one could stand its pitfalls and the typical service issues. Something most must have forgotten over the years is the difference is service costs. It was routine to have $1,000 service bills at the MB dealer as soon as the car got a few years old.
Can’t remember which magazine did it (could have easily been MoTrend or C&D) but they did a test of the Seville and the E Class. At the time I thought that the better comparison would have been with the S Class as my feeling is that was what that buyer would have really been deciding between. None the less, as I remember it, the Cadillac aquited itself well in the comparison.
Steve continues to have a problem with the stiff C pillar. It was not a problem at all and was a completely valid different solution on what to do with the backlight. Do you hate the Silver Shadow Rolls Royce too?
The real shame with this Seville is that its humpback successor gave up the Euro appeal of the original with the baroque approach. By the time the 3rd gen came out Cadillac had already lost the connectionto the market that the 1st gen had established.
My point about the West Coast was that imports weren’t an asterisk like they were in Detroit — and so basic attitudes about automobiles could be different. That didn’t mean Sevilles weren’t bought, but it did mean that Cadillac didn’t utterly monopolize the market — particularly with younger buyers. Imports making inroads in the high end of the market was an important step in Detroit’s decline and fall.
You make a big deal about the Seville’s “sheer look” when it was actually a fairly pedestrian design approach. It’s not like Cadillac invented relatively rounded wheel openings and flat side surfacing. GM was essentially solving a design problem of its own making by stepping back from overly busy side styling.
I think that the Silver Shadow’s styling works fine for that car’s positioning in the marketplace. In general, I’m not big on copycat exercises, particularly when the result is awkward. And I would continue to argue that a compact Cadillac should have moved closer to the international mainstream in its basic styling. That partly meant something more aerodynamic. Mitchell was too deep into the neo-classical school of design to give aerodynamics its due in a luxury sedan.
Sorry, Steve, but I can’t agree with your assessment of the nearly vertical C-pillar as an expression of “form over function” paradigm. Outside the US this Americanesque design feature is usually considered to be ugly, but practical, as it provides some additional interior room at the cost of look. Volvo used a similar treatment on its 7** series of cars for this very reason. Form follows function – definitely not vice versa.
I don’t publish Indie Auto because I expect agreement; often it is to give voice to a “minority” view one may not see on other automotive blogs.
Did Volvo use an upright C-pillar primarily for practical reasons or because by that point it was considered conventionally stylish? I don’t know, but I suspect that William Mitchell’s primary motivation with the Seville was not to be more practical. And, again, I doubt that it helped aerodynamics, particularly when squared-off so sharply. At least the 1994 Chrysler LHS put some curvature into their design, which presumably helped aerodynamics. (I think it also looked better, but in the end aesthetics are subjective.)
Be very careful about making assumptions on aerodynamics without having the numbers and even the pictures of the flow patterns. That still backlight might be better at getting quick separation like a Kamm back versus a sloping roof that has separated air flow its whole length. Understand that the numbers may be from the clay and not from an actual car. It might also be wise to question if some of the European cars that have quoted numbers were for home market where the big US bumpers of the 1970s and 1980 were not needed. Those cars might also have the more flush headlights that were not US legal too.
I’m not saying that the Seville is or isn’t aerodynamic or the extent to which some of the solutions are good or bad for aero. I wish that John Manoogian would make some comments here as he was in the wind tunnel refining designs so has experience of what one may think is good that turn out to be wrong or how some little tweak made a outsized difference.
One should also be aware that there is more to aero that just Cd. There is C for lift front, lift rear and in yaw. Do not forget that with Cd the calculation is for total frontal area. So a smaller frontal area car might have a higher Cd number but actually have less total drag.
Ultimately, in my view, the biggest problem with this Seville was that GM didn’t immediately build upon the car’s sales to chart a new direction for Cadillac. Whatever we say about the Seville today, it did sell well, and opened a path for Cadillac to revitalize its image.
But even during this generation, GM added a cheesy Rolls-Royce style grille for 1977, and then cluttered up the clean, basic design with two-tone paint jobs, wire wheels (both real wire wheels, and fake covers), fat white walls and extra chrome. What it needed to do was bring out a version without a vinyl roof, and with styled road wheels, black-wall tires, a more subdued grille, bucket seats and a floor-mounted shifter.
That opportunity was never pursued. GM then completely threw away whatever momentum the first Seville had by bringing out the tacky bustle-back model for 1980.
1977 did offer a no vinyl roof. [Doing this required changes to the roof as the vinyl covered a roof extension].
Some of what you complain about with the fake Rolls Royce grill and wide whitewalls were dealer installed items that had nothing to do with the GM option list.
As I remember it the only two tone offered by GM was the 1978 and 1979 Seville Elegante package in only 2 choices – black & silver or a brown/saddle. It also got a different front seat with bucket seats instead of the standard 50/50 split seat which were completely separate seats.
In 1976 the MB 450 SEL had wheelcovers as standard, not cast road wheels.
I wholehartedly agree then and continuing today, that the humpback successor destroyed what the 1st gen Seville had achieved as a different direction that could and did appeal to those that did not want their parents and grandparents Cadillac.
An interesting what-if would be over how GM had for a while considered using the Opel Diplomat platform instead of the X body as the basis for the Seville. That would have meant solving the US tooling issue of metric vs SAE and building to the tighter German tolerances. The Diplomat already had a De Dion rear suspension and 4 wheel disc brakes. Might it have made the Seville a US and German market car (through Opel dealers)? Since the diplomat had not sold particularly well, would it have salvaged that segment for Opel and become a regular competitor in the upper end German and other European markets?
An interesting side note for the Seville it that it was exported to Iran during the Shah’s years in knock down form for assembly locally. So the Seville did have some international appeal with an estimated 2,500 built before Iran’s revolution.
The 1977 model featured a grille design, with a chrome “header,” that was obviously inspired by Rolls-Royce. It was not an improvement over the original design – if anything, the chrome piece over the grille looked cheap and tacked-on. This was straight from the factory.
The Elegante version is not what the Seville needed. It did not need two-tone paint jobs (regardless of the color combination) or wire wheels (even real ones).
Mercedes offered road wheels during this era on both the E- and C-Class. That is what Cadillac should have offered with the Seville. There was nothing wrong with the Seville’s standard wheel covers, but Cadillac offered wire wheels (both ersatz, and the real thing) instead of styled road wheels. That was not taking the Seville in the direction it needed to go.
To me the 1976 Seville – and the later 1977 downsized full-sizers and 1978 downsized intermediates – was the wrong solution to the problem of GM’s cars in those segments becoming really excessively bloated: the cars were so large – and the proportions off – that curves were overstretched or boxy designs looked ponderous.
Size was trimmed (right move), but the boxy styling really inched very closely to me to not being styled at all: yes, the side sculpting of the Seville is very nice and delicate, but the boxy greenhouse and the trunk really nullified it. I would have rather went for something like an “S” semi-fastback shape like the 1968-72 intermediate coupes, or a slightly more pointy version of it if you will, with the benefit of also having a larger trunk.
In May,1975, the owner of Fairbanks Broadcasting, Richard M. Fairbanks, drove up to WIBC-AM/WNAP-FM in the first customer-delivered 1975 Seville in Indiana. Dick Fairbanks was a true blue-blood “son” of the American Revolution, a direct descendant ofJonathon Fairbanks, who built in 1636 the oldest surviving frame house in the U.S, (Dedham, MA) and who owned the Old Post Office in Boston where Ben Franklin was one of the original postmasters. Mr. Fairbanks was “old -money” and my boss’ boss. R.M.F. was the grandson of The Pennsylvania (Railroad) Company’s legal counsel in the late 1800s and rose in politics to become Teddy Roosevelt’s Vice President (1905-1909). Mr. F. loved cars and owned several, mainly Audis and Benzs and two perfect Chrysler “Town & Countrys”. Indianapolis during the month of May is always a car spotter’s dream with the local “who’s whos” driving 500 Festival “official” pace cars, but Mr. F. and his new black over silver Seville were the talk of the town, which he loved. He made it a point to get a new Seville every model year until 1980. (He hated the “bustle-back” which he called a “pimpmobile”.)
In 1975, the Seville’s style was unique, but the 1977 G.M. down-sized standard all had a passing resemblence due to dual rectangular headlights at each corner.hhh