|WikiProject Automobiles||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
What initially hurt sales of the Cimarron was the small four cylinder engine and manual transmission. Cadillac should've made the car available only with the V6 and automatic. Unfortunately, the public was mostly ignoring the car by the time the V6 was made available. I still meet people with my 1986 Cimarron who don't believe the car was available with a V6. A bad first impression is tough to shake, especially when you don't massively advertise and promote it when you rectify the initial issues. (See also the Ford Mustang II with no V8 for 1974. Many people still assume the car was never available with a V8 through its five year production!)
Another strike against the Cimarron was the availability of only one body style, the four door sedan. Had Cadillac at least made a convertible (which I believe the Cavalier was the only J Body with a convertible option) version, it might have helped sales. There also should've been a two door coupe Cimarron.
What hurt the Cimarron...
I think you're absolutely right. Cadillac wanted more time to develop the car, but GM is really to blame. Them and their CAFE goals. The 1.8 was an extremely weak engine, and they just never should have used it in a Cadillac. The availability of a stickshift wasn't a bad thing at all, especially according to the press, but to have had to pay hundreds more for an automatic on a car many already considered too expensive was an insult to many buyers. I own an '88 with the V6, and I never have problems convincing people it has a V6; my main problem is convincing them it's a Cadillac because next to nobody alive today has even seen one, and few have heard of them. Maybe Cadillac likes it that way and wants to keep it a corporate secret from now on. (Haha!!)
Both Chevrolet Cavalier and Pontiac Sunbird (later Sunfire) had convertible versions from 1983 to 2000, with the exception of a few years. A Cimarron convertible would have been sweet. A few exist, but I'm sure they're all custom jobs. I've even seen a stretch limousine version for sale in Illinois!
Honestly, though, I've owned three different Cavaliers of different years, engines, and body styles (convertible, wagon, Z24 coupe), and my '88 Cimarron is far nicer than any of them. By the last year, they had made quite a competent small luxury car, and there's no doubt in my mind that if that version had hit the scene first, we might still have it around today (though it might now be called "CTS", wink, wink), but, alas, you never get a second chance to make a first impression, and that's what stuck with people. weetbixkid 14:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Listen I purchased a brand new Cimarron in 1984, 4 Cil and drove it until 2000. I gave it to a friend, it had 286,000 origional miles, the engine ran flawlessly, I had the transmission rebuilt at 90,000 miles. That was about it. I replaced the alternator myself several times (very easy to work on).One can change the stark plugs in 5 minutes. Oh yes, since it was my first front wheel drive, I just assumed all front wheels drove like my Cimarron in the snow. Well I found out it wasn't . The Cimarron had a different wheeel and tire mix than the other "J" cars, Old, Pontiac, Chevy and Buick all had versions, but I believe the Cimarron had an unique suspension. Anyway my car had the reputation as the car in my office (Iam a Realtor) to drive in a snow storm. Better than any Jeep I know about.It was unbelievably amazing in the snow. I didn't have to shovel my driveway, becasue it did not fear snow. Anyway, that car did not owe me a nickle, it was worth every penny I paid for it. I believe I drove it for 16 years, it would not die, but the mparts became very hard to find, so I gave it up. by the way it was a very comfortable car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- You fail at the english language —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 01:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I wonder how the person(s) who wrote GM 60-Degree V6 engine could possibly have completely missed including the Cimarron? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 04:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
Cimarron by Cadillac
The fact that this car was originally badged as the Cimarron by Cadillac isn't nearly as big a deal as people seem to make it out to be. It does not imply any "lack of confidence" in the car by Cadillac. This phrasing was very common on cars, particularly among General Motors in the '60s, '70s, and into the '80s. Here are some examples of badges on actual cars: Nova by Chevrolet, Monte Carlo by Chevrolet, Grand Prix by Pontiac, Cutlass Supreme by Oldsmobile. Does this wording seem to imply a lack of confidence in these cars? If anything, it seems to me to be trying to add an air of distinction around the car. weetbixkid 11:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
"Cadillac's first manual since 1953"?
If Cadillac was still offering a manual transmission by 1953, I can't find it mentioned in any other Cadillac articles on the site. Whats the story on this? It'd be nice if somebody elaborated. I've always assumed 1948 was the first year of Cadillac's brand-wide automatic transmission. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- If you look at automotive history books (e.g., Standard Catalog of American Cars: 1976-1999) and even period material, such as the car's brochure and Consumer Guide's "Auto '82," you'd likely find references that the Cimarron came with a manual transmission. I'll check, but I think the Standard Catalog should confirm that the '53 Caddy was the last sold with the old "three-on-the-tree" (although it's probably a safe bet that a vast majority of 1948-1953 Cadillacs were sold with a HydraMatic transmission. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)]]
This article is terrible! I added a few tags at the top pertaining to Weasel Words and clean up. In my opinion this article needs a TOTAL rewrite to be passable. The shape its in right now is absolutely horrendous. Someone please adopt this page if there is anyone who actually cares! —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 01:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Edits of 26 February 2010
I have substantially reworked this article today, removing the 'weasel words' and adding multiple citations. As a result, I have removed all article issue tags except the 'additional citations' tag, since several unreferenced statements remain. I will continue looking for additional references to bring this article up to standards. ObtuseAngle (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)