Talk:Cadillac Cimarron

V6 Engine
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)]]

Total Loss
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)

Cimarron Wins Worst of Show at 2011 Concours d'LeMons
Hey, ObtuseAngle, thought you might be interested in this, since you seem to be the one working on this article: http://concoursdlemons.com/ Andacar (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Poor Sourcing
The article cites Brock Yates 1983 book, The Decline and Fall of the American Automobile Industry. The problem is, I have the book, and the book doesn't support the sections of the article where it's used as a reference. For instance, the sentence below is ostensibly supported by p. 71 of the book -- but that page is about Roger Smith's upbringing and not the J cars:
 * "As General Motors began to prepare for the 1980s, Cadillac product planners sought to develop a sedan smaller than the Seville. While the Seville had sold well, in its research of buyers, Cadillac learned that in place of import buyers, many examples of the 1976-1979 Seville were purchased by traditional luxury-car buyers seeking a smaller car.  To diversify (and modernize) their product range, in addition to the Cadillac Seville competing against premium European luxury sedans, Cadillac dealers began to demand a vehicle competing against compact European sedans.

Unless someone who made these edits steps up to clarify how this is, I'll wait a bit and the scrub the article of these mis-references and the content they are purported to support. 842U (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * If the book refers mostly to Roger Smith, then [page 71] is likely useless as a source for this context. Part of the content is derived from the Cadillac Seville article, while the last part is from this article prior to its revisions (under minor rewording).

If the source is no longer useless, it should go. How far will the article be scrubbed? We all have different views on editing, so it could vary widely...--SteveCof00 (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Nadir of GM product planning
While I'm not thinking of deleting it (because this product line remains a poster child for poor badge engineering), this is certainly a statement that should be expanded upon some more. --SteveCof00 (talk) 09:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)