Hustle & Bustle: The Battle of the Bustlebacks
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ธ.ค. 2024
- 🔒Remove your personal information from the web at joindeleteme.c... and use the code EAR for 20% off 🙌 DeleteMe International Plans: international....
A classic car connaisseur tells the history of the short lived bustleback craze in the malaise era plagued American car industry of the 1980's. The Cadillac Seville, Chrysler's Imperial and the Lincoln Continental duke it out to see who's got the best neoclassical kitschmobile, inspired by such cars like the Daimler DS420 and the Hooper bodied Rolls Royce Empress models. After all imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, no?
Remember to like, subscribe and share if you want more of this!
You can follow me on Instagram: www.instagram....
You can always email me at:
edsautoreviews@gmail.com
Enjoy!
🔒Remove your personal information from the web at joindeleteme.com/EAR and use the code EAR for 20% off 🙌 DeleteMe International Plans: international.joindeleteme.com
Forgot to say; If GM had only used the small block Chevy to convert into a diesel engine, it has 17 head bolts per head not just 10......
In 1983, I drove by the Chrysler dealership as they were pulling out a new imperial. It was dark blue and just glittered in the Summer sun and I fell in love with it. I couldn't afford one at the time being only 23 years old, but I always wanted one. Last year I finally found one with only one owner. It's a 1981 that is silver with the red leather interior just like the most commonly used color in the advertising brochure. It also has the rare sunroof option that was only offered in 1981. It gets a lot of attention and thumbs up when I drive it around. I love it, and I think that the bustle back treatment on the Imperial is the best looking of the three.
What a nice story! Thanks for sharing!
You bought the PERFECT one! Congratulations!
"Oprah windows" made me spit champagne out of my nose.
Reminds me of the movie Speed Zone where the guys are calling in the plate numbers and descriptions of the competitors to get them pulled over. "I'd like to report a stolen car please, a Cadillac convertible. What color is it? It's white, kind of a Betty White".
I'm French and nobody understands me when I try to say 'opera' in English.
Or 'car'.
Are "Oprah Windows" ultra rich windows that are secretly involved with P Diddy and may end up Fleeing the Country?!! If so, I don't care for those windows either..
not quite . "Oprah" is a TV talk show host .... you mean "OPERA WINDOW" .... (the E is silent)
@@markhellman-pn3hn Thank you, Perfessor. I'm sure no one knew that until you chimed in. Here are some other questions I want to know the answer to. I'm sure you'll be able to help me out? Who is buried in Grant's Tomb? Who rode Lee's white horse?
The bustle on the rear of the Imperial is probably the most successful execution of this kind of rear.
My dad used to work at Saginaw Steering Gear where the steering and front suspension parts were made. I did like the '76-'79 Seville more than the second generation. Dad brought a 1977 Seville home one night and I fell in love with it.
That Imperial you photoshopped ended up looking like a dolled up Gremlin.
Great suggestion, I pondered whether to include the Gremlin or not, but you're right!
16:15 If I wanted to buy a car in 1981 I would buy a used car from a time when the big 3 actually made good cars. Something sporty or luxurious or just elegant from the late 60s would be my pick
It's funny how car designers thought the styling of 45 years ago was better, 45 years ago.
The easy choice for me would have been the Lincoln. The bustleback was well done IMO, and they didnt have the powertrain headaches Chrysler and Caddy did then. Imperial might have fixed theirs the last year, but the damage was done.
Yep, for some reason, Chrysler built a car that only ran on 93 octane fuel. That might have been fine in 1966. However, with the early 80s economy the way it was, it was foolish for Chrysler to expect that customers would stick to running premium. If they had it running on 87, it would have been a hit.
A nice car, killed by cheap gasoline.
@ThreeWheelFlyer I guess they figured it was a expensive car, so the owners wouldn't care.
Two of the three engines put in the Lincoln were complete garbage: The 3.8L and the 2.4L turbo Diesel. The 302 is good, but the Cadillac could be had with the 368 and a 4.1L version of the Buick V6. I'd say they are about equal on engines as both have one desirable one.
@@ThreeWheelFlyer The more I look at Imperial's trunk the more I like it.
They ran Imperials in NASCAR because they were more aerodynamic than the Magnum!
9:04
Olds Cutlass fastback, aka the "buttless Cutlass" 🤣🤣🤣
😂
Never heard the expression before, I love it!
@@EdsAutoReviews I believe the automotive press gave them that nickname back when they were new. It's definitely well known. You can Google "buttless cutlass" and pictures and articles about that car pop up.
Almost 3000 views in 1 hour. Shows how much we appreciate your videos!
Having owned 5 Lincolns so far, I'd have to be brand loyal and stick with the Connie. Really like the Valenteno interior❤
“THANK YOU ED” we all say in unison
THANK YOU ED
Thank you, Ed!
I'm probably blinded by nostalgia, but I love these and wish they would make a comeback. I long for a new era of elegance.
Well yes, true US Design doesn’t exist anymore, very sad!
We need to make Ed an honorary American citizen at this point (if we haven't already and if he'd have us). Love the channel buddy.
The bustle back looked bad when it came out, and it still does.
I was there then. I was a kid wondering just who was impressed by the design? I could never figure it out, and I have never met a car guy or gal who bought one to keep in good condition, restore, or even to hot rod. The Cadillac, especially, gave signs of foreboding times that we all knew were there, but that we could not put into words.
@@workingguy-OU812 I was there too. First time I saw a 1980 Seville I thought it looked pretty good.....from the front.
I like all of them
It's just your opinion
Your face looked bad as a baby and worse now your 45 and a virgin
I always liked the second generation Seville's design. I appreciated the boldness.
I think the prototype one at 5:24 looked better, almost like a Citroën
ED IS THE BEST. HE PUTS A LOT OF WORK INTO HIS SHOWS AND HIS RESEARCH SKILL IS EXCELLENT PRESENTED IN AN EASY GOING STYLE.
You got a little confused on the Seville. HT4100 did not have cylinder deactivation. The V8-6-4 368 cid, however, did. I don't think the HT4100 was ready (to be a turd) until 1982.
Hands down, the Imperial is the beauty contest winner. But as it was a gorgeous piece of crap, it barely lasted 3 years. And your version of opera windows was HILARIOUS.
2:46 making this video's has an impact on your hairline Ed. Let's support it!
The garbage truck Seville 😂😂
I loved the Seville when it was new and still do.
18:46 Donald Trump jump scare warning
He moved to 11:25. Sneaky guy!
Trump Derangement Syndrome got you down?
I was in my senior year of high school when the Seville came out, and I fell in love with it.
I've always wanted one, and I still want one. Just never had the money for it one way or the other.
Imperial bustleback is the most appealing to my eyes. It looks good in a 2 door
Continental all day.
Because it's a foxbody. You can get high performance parts designed for the contemporaneous mustang and for the most part, directly bolt on the the Connie and make a killer sleeper.
Very informative and entertaining as always, Ed. And your facial expressions during the "Delete Me" ad were hysterical! Keep it coming, please. And even though I'm a FoMoCo guy, I always thought the Continental was the best of this lot: best (!) styling, highest quality interior (real wood, for starters), and the best showcase of '80s technology such as the electronic IP and climate control, and keyless entry. (We'll ignore that awful BMW diesel offered as an option.)
Cool dudes with a $22,000 USd budget were buying loaded up 3- series BMW's back then- and spending the extra on coke. Poorer ones were buying the new VW Gti for $8k.
😂
I wish certain elements of older cars would make a return.
I personally am just bored of cheap black plastic interiors.
And trying to be minimalist. I just want a interesting interior. With multiple colors. And that's practical.
I find all the chrome and fake wood a bit gaudy now.
But I wish we could find a happy medium between today and some older elements.
Thank you Ed. This was great and entertaining. I got behind on your videos and have been catching up. This funny was great and entertaining to watch. I saw the Oldsmobiles mentioned and shared. That was a nice touch. The Imperial returned 1990-1993 models years as a four door sedan. Seville turned around with the 1992 redesign. Continental stuck around for a while and then returned a few years ago and then was dropped. Good video.
$22,000 was a lot of money back in 1983
2.5 VW GTi's worth!
If you run 93 octane in the Imperial, it runs great! (Chrysler said in the manual to only run 93.) Anything less, and it stalls. Also, dual fuel filters in line should keep you out of trouble.
The Imperial was based on the Chrysler La Scalla, a 1977 prototype originally envisioned to be the new Cordoba.
"Oprah Windows" 😂, so random. Yet it got me good enough to laugh out loud like an idiot 🤣
Does it come with a free book under the seat? 😂😊
Always a great joke 😂😂😂
Always look forward to your videos.
I remember the Lincoln being very popular at the time.
My father had a 1980 Lincoln Mark VI coupe Givenchy edition and then two years later, he bought a 1982 Lincoln Continental bustleback Givenchy edition so we had two in the garage. I really liked the smaller Continental.
Personally, I loved the Seville from being a kid. I had many toy Sevilles too.
Chrysler made a "Kit" to convert the early Imperial fuel injection to carburation. The parts kit came in a box that could double as a coffin. It had a new fuel tank, fuel lines carburetor, intake manifold, wiring harnesses and a new non-digital dash instrument cluster, amongst other things. The kit was about $4000.00 and we only sold one!
Hi, Bruce. The retro kit's new dash module was fully digital just as the original had been: it remained the industry's only fully digital dash, including even the odometer. The kit also contained an entire new exhaust system and all of the engine-management hardware and smog equipment, including evap. canisters.
It still had a digital dash after conversion. The Dash was simply replaced.
Had new Chrysler Imperial 1981. New $27K. USD .Real money.
I calculate that to be about $USD 93,375, give or take in today's magical 21st century world. Um. Plus gas. Yeah, that's exactly what I'd say. Ya wanna Greyhound or Harvey Wallbanger? Yeah, I was one of those guys that got baked & laid on 'bangers. I switched to Greyhounds to help me stay slim...😆🖖
I've been dreading this episode, because I always hated the bustlebacks. But Ed, you did an excellent job of presenting them, as you always do.
Great video Ed, but the car you show at 17:48 was definitely NOT a K-Car. It was a rear wheel drive M-body and Chrysler produced those under various names from 1977 through 1989
I’ve been a huge fan of the the Seville, since it’s introduction. I ‘almost’ bought an all black (royal blue interior) 4.1L Seville in the late 80’s for $9,999… probably the best mistake (reliability/quality wise) that never happened! Still… I love them, especially two-tone black/silver. Thanks for the video.
I had a 1992 Seville. It looked nice when it was new. I actually got compliments about that car. Unfortunately the build quality was atrocious. The interior bits quickly returned to their base elements. The high mounted LED stop lamp (first use of LED on an American car) failed days after the warranty ran out. Window regulator motors failed. Instrument cluster failed. Clear-coat failed, and I live in the Northeast and not the desert Southwest. Tail lamps cracked and filled with water. The adjustable suspension failed and couldn't be repaired. The high-tech struts were replaced with passive struts. The only reliable bits were the engine (4.9 and not the Deathstar) and the trans. The car was not cheap, $38K when new, over $80K when adjusted for inflation. I would have been much better off with a Town Car. The experience made me swear off Caddilacs forever.
8:37 okay, that is actually a really good approach to the design, understated, like mercedes did with the cls and the swoopy fenders, and it doesnt look that far off from the rest of the boxy slabs from the era
I owned an 85 Seville and it was perfect..I miss having it
When the Imperial was axed the Chrysler Fifth Avenue got a big push and was selling like hot cakes for many years
I would have bought the Cadillac in Black over Silver! I always thought the Cadillac looked gorgeous and was the most elegant. Cadillac made a Big Mistake by replacing it's Bustle Back Seville with that Ugly, Tiny Square Car which they apparently used a Chisel to design.
I owned a 1985 black silver Elegante Seville for 16 years here in Bavaria! ✨👍🏼🏁
The Imperial has the best front end styling by a long shot. Looks like something a cartoon villain would drive. I want one with a supercharger sticking out of the hood just because.
Okay, here's a shout out to the 82-87 Lincoln Contis. I had one, an 85 with fuel injection and peeling interior wood trim on doors. It was a striking car. If you noticed Lincoln always filmed it from the rear in advertising. For Cadillac they would film the car from the front, same as Chrysler and get around to the back end. Lincoln Conti for the win!
I'd just skip them all. My grandfather had a 78 Seville which was nice, if a bit small. A friend of his had the bustleback Continental which, like every single other one I've seen, had blown rear air suspension, giving it an absolute ox-cart (read rock-hard) ride, slamming harshly over every slight bump in the road.
I always thought those Imperials were great looking cars.
My grandparents bought two new Cadillac Sevilles for their 50 anniversary.
They were invited to the dealership for the unveiling of the restyled 1980s with the bustle back and they took one look and bought a Mercedes and the BMW
Wise choices!
my father bought one for my mom and she refused to drive it. that thing looked hideous. after it sat in the driveway for a little over a year it was traded in on a new Mercury Grand Marquis.
@@unkulwilly Can't blame her. That's spousal abuse. 😁
How much did they give to charity in they're lifetime?
@@unkulwilly He should have parked her in the driveway for a year.
The Cadillac before the bustleback was a good looking car. Caddy should have kept it. For me I liked the Lincoln. Plenty of hot rod parts for the 5 liter and you have the perfect sleeper.
The cadillac is a much better looking car and a real luxury car. Lincoln is a dressed up Fairmont with a horrible air suspension
Easy choice for me. One car, one year only. Seville, 1980. Cadillac's attempt to "fix" the visual impact of the bustle by adding the side spear and padded roof in 1981 killed the purity of the lines. Slick top, no spear, thank you. The V8-6-4 was only offered for 1980. It was based on the 472/500/425, a solid, reliable engine, and the solenoid valve deactivation works well if you understand what it's doing. The first years of the HT4100 starting in 1981, however, were a disaster. Imperial and Lincoln? Meh. Nice, I guess...but I like Cadillac's lightning-in-a-bottle for 1980.
the fuel injection on the Frank Sinatra edition Imperial was so bad, Frank got in a fight with Iacocca and gave his back.
Frank was upset over the fuel injection issues but he did not give it back.
What , no photo of a real Bustle Back!!
Maybe put one up as click bait Ed.
Cheers 🇨🇦
It's a tossup between Continental (gas milage) and Imperial (trunk space and styling), but considering the poorer gas milage of the Imperial (I'm guessing if your rich enough gas milage isn't a thought) a fuel injection that works and the price of $21000 (per 15:47) I'd go for the Continental, but if I was rich, it's the Imperial (it's the golf clubs, you know). ;-D
I have an '81 Imperial and it gets over 25mpg on the highway and around 18 in town, so not sure how they came up with those numbers!
My first impression when the Cadillac Deville bustleback came out? A four door Gremlin with a hunchback hatchback. I was told later it was an attempt to emulate the classics.
You never cease to come through with these videos! I love Fords and classic American cars so much so seeing your videos helps me learn more about them every time! Thank you!
For me it would be chrysler in the 60's , cadillac in the 70's , and lincoln in the 80's.
It is a Sunday. And a new Vido from Ed. BEST SUNDAY
14:24 - Imperial has a "respectable" 140 horsepower.
15:36 - Continental has a "leisurely" 140 horsepower.
Sounds like a bit of Mopar bias if you ask me...
The weight could make a difference, although I imagine they were pretty similar.
From what I understand if you used premium fuel you didn't have any problems with the Imperial. And I believe Chrysler recommended using premium. There are Imperial buyers who said they never had any problems because they always used premium.
I did not like the looks of the 2nd gen Seville when it came out. Over time, I can say that I think it is beautiful. I think that Lincoln did the best job of the bustle-back treatment. I definitely would choose the Lincoln Continental over the other two. Too many problems with the diesel Cadillac and its 4.1 HT engine, too many problems with the Imperial. Only problem with the Lincoln are the air bag suspension. I'll take the Lincoln. This was a really hilarious video!!!
My pal’s Grandmother was well-to-do in the 80’s. She had a brand new Cadillac Seville. Gray and blue. It was a peach. I loved that car.
Continental.Givenchy
Tour de force this one. Belongs in the Ed’s Auto Hall of Fame. Bravo 👏 Well done 👊
I remember very clearly seeing the "new" 1980 model Seville bustleback on a turntable in the center of the showroom floor. Penske Cadillac Menlo Park, CA, It was a car reserved only for the upper crust of society at the time. I worked at the country club so I did see many Sevilles and Mercedes station wagons for all tennis moms.. a great time in America!
Jeremy Clarkson described the Cadillac like a dog taking a dump!!
I thought that was the Chrysler Crossfire he was reviewing- and also, he was trying to find something that was "American" on it😂
@ Holy cr@p you’re 100% correct, it was the Crossfire!! 😂
Givenchy edition Lincoln
$22,000 in 1982 is equivalent to about $74,000 today.
Ha! I like 'em. They're fun and different. I like the Seville replacement too...the up-right-ness is pretty cool looking (in my eyes). Thanks Ed. Love your stuff.
I sold Cadillacs in the 80’s in California. This model Seville was popular. I remember they were really nice to drive, when they were new.
I love that Seville, it's a legend. We still talk of it 44 yrs later.
Interesting topic and much discussion about which styling and model was the best. Never thought I’d actually own one; a 1985 Cadillac Seville Elegante. And I like it very much, even with the HT4100, one of the most economical and smoothest running V8’s…but slow. Though in urban traffic it’s totally fine…The packaging design and weight distribution was very wel thought out with front wheel drive and independent rear suspension. The interior space was also very good and the interior design very luxurious. Also the bustle back design by Wayne Kady to my mind is the best ‘sculptured’ styling compared to the Imperial and Lincoln which just don’t have the (to my opinion) integration of smooth 70’s - 80’s American automotive styling features.
Ah yes, more infamous malaise era cars. These were part of the 'downsizing' push that also included other GM, Ford and Mopar products due to the fuel crises (1973-74, 1979-80), EPA fuel mileage demands, the phasing out of the 'barges'. The long hood, short trunk form became popular in the 1960's. The real design also was to keep up the trunk volume. The Imperial was only made as a 2 door coupe, it was more competing with the Lincoln Mark series and other personal luxury 2 door models, not the 4 door comparables. Like the way you did the ad, funny and made it point. At least it wasn't like the recent Jaguar ad. Perhaps another subject of your series could be car marketing and ads - good, bad and ugly.
A breathe of fresh air ~
Love the Oprah window !
As much as I am not a Chrysler fan nowadays with modern chryslers, I would have absolutely gone with the Imperial back then. The added bonus of having an imperial is that you could then call it a Star Destroyer.
That guy that sounds like a grown-up Dexter from "Dexter's Laboratory" is baaacck! ... with another great car video.
The bustle butt cars look like the inspiration was a car that rolled backward off of the car carrier. The resulting squashed rear end was an epiphany. Or, the AMC Gremlin haunted their dreams.
"Opera windows" lmfao 1:22
Very informative video as always
I used to know a guy that had a 1973 Ford Thunderbird with a "continental kit" option. Basically the same car as any other 1973 'bird, but with a fairly understated fake spare tire on the trunk. Out of the various "continental" Fords, that car looked the best, imho. Apparently, not many of these ever sold; I can't find a decent pic of one like it.
I'd buy the Imperial but that was way beyond my 15 year olds budget back in 83 😂.... Something you mentioned though, about owners bringing their Imperials back to get converted to carbs due to the problematic fuel injection.... That's not Chrysler's first rodeo: would love to see you do a video on the Bendix Fuel Injection they offered back in 58 (world's first electronic setup) and the ensuing nightmare they had with it - love your content, keep up the great videos 😎
The Imperial is the only car that I think actually looks good on its own merits, not just in comparison to the other bustle back boats.
Don't think so. Imperials wheel-base is too short and overhangs way too long.
Seville has that cool long hood short deck proportions.
@@Romiman1The Imperial's wheelbase is only 1" shorter than the Seville
@matthewbrock6338 Yes, but it doesn't fit to its overall-length.
@@Romiman1- I, and many others, disagree. The comment I hear the most about my 1981 Imperial is how beautiful or gorgeous it is.
I'm a GM guy. And the Cadillac looks the best. But the Imperial has the best drivetrain. And it's rear wheel drive. The Cadillac is front wheel drive. I don't know anything about the Lincoln. I don't care either. It's ugly and I don't like Ford products. Especially if I have to work on them. So I'd buy the Imperial.
I did not care for the look, and I'm a GM guy.. Seville didn't look really good again until the 1992 Seville STS with the stiletto syling.
Oprah windows! 🤣 Your humour is my humour! Wonderful.
The first year of the bustle-back Continental had a 3.8L V6 option, and the Ford 5.0 (302 CID) with a 7200VV electronic feedback carburetor. In 1983 only the Ford 5.0, but now with central fuel injection (Ford CFI with all 8 cylinders sharing two fuel injectors at the top of the intake manifold, with EEC-III electronic controls) was available. In 1984 the front end was significantly refreshed with new lights, grill, bumper, filler panels, and a slight rear fresh with a smaller and differently shaped emblem/trunk lock cover, rectangles added to the taillights, and different bumper and lower side valence. In 1984 the fuel injection was still Ford CFI but switched to EEC-IV electronic controls. In 1986 the Continental (along with other Lincolns and Ford products such as the 1986 Mustang GT) switched to SEFI (Sequential Electronic Fuel Injection, or cylinder head intake port style fuel injection with one injector per cylinder). 1987 was the last year of the 7th generation Continental before the FWD 8th generation Continental debuted.
Say what you want, at least you could tell them apart.
„Oprah Windows“
LOL😂😂😂
I used to call those Sevilles the ones with the garbage truck back.
I actually like all three of these cars. I love old Lincolns, so I am partial to it of these, particularly the refresh in 1984 ownard through 1987. The '86 and '87 are the best of them, with the sequential multiport fuel injection, and the introduction of the optional JBL Audio System. It's too bad they didn't make a variant with the high performance engine from the Mark VII LSC.
Lincoln did not stick too long with their larger cars...they were successful for as long as they made them.
I like the Lincoln myself 😊
My dad bought the Cadillac one. Brown and maroon two tone. He knew it was ugly, but loved the interior.
I guess I'm alone here...I've loved it from the first day I saw it.
I agree. I actually like the Cadillac! I've only seen one In recent times I think it's a nice looking car.
Same here! My favourite is the Imperial
Loved the Imperial. My father was a Dodge dealer and, because our service department was Chrysler trained, "it was a p.o.s. when it rolled off the line."
About the Cadillac: me too!
I'm with you. I like all of these cars.
I worked for GM but I liked the LC because it had air bags that were adjusted by themselves for a wonderful ride but the Caddy was a little bit larger inside. The cams on the caddys were weak in an effort to make them use less fuel.
We had a Seville bustleback - even with the compact spare right up against the back of the back seat, the trunk was just a little better than useless - you couldn't but anything bigger than a #11 envelope into it.
I'd take the Seville, and it isn't even close. Not only is it easily the best looking of the three, but it was a true luxury car. The Imperial was basically a Plymouth Volare underneath and the Lincoln Continental was basically a Ford Granada.
You also have a few mistakes in your video. The 1986 Seville was a whole new platform, it wasn't just a facelifted model. The 1980-1985 Seville lasted just as long as the 1982-1987 Continental.
one little correction. the continental was based on the Fairmont which is worse than granada. Also the Seville along with its e body cousins had independent rear suspension
@@chrisxa1222 The 1981-82 Granada was the same thing as a Fairmont.
I think I’d have to go with the Lincoln!
It was the least obnoxious of the three, and was the least unreliable. That doesn't mean it was good.