52 of the
1,049 complaints filed about the Cadillac Seville
are about the lighting —
5% of everything owners reported.
The worst model year for it is 1997.
MY CONCERN IS PLASTIC HEADLIGHT LENSES. THE PLASTIC LENSES DETERIORATE TO THE POINT THAT THEY CLOUD OVER AND BECOME YELLOW, DRASTICALLY REDUCING THERE EFFECTIVENESS IN LIGHTING THE ROADWAY AT NIGHT OR DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER. HOW DID THE AUTO MAKERS CONVINCE THE NHTSA THAT PLASTIC LENSES WERE SAFE ? WHEN DID IT BECOME THE VEHICLE OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY TO HAVE TO BUY EXPENSIVE KITS, WHOSE EFFECTIVENESS IS DUBIOUS AT BEST, TO TRY AND KEEP THEIR HEADLIGHTS BRIGHT ENOUGH TO BE SAFE ? THE ONLY OTHER ALTERNATIVE IS TO BUY REPLACEMENT LENSES AND FOR THOSE WITHOUT THE MECHANICAL ABILITY, ALSO HAVE TO PAY TO HAVE THEM INSTALLED, ONLY TO FACE THE SAME PROBLEM WHEN THE NEW ONES BECOME UNUSABLE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE AUTO MAKERS SAVE WEIGHT AND MONEY BY NOT USING GLASS BUT IT IS MY FIRM BELIEF THAT IT THE AUTO MAKERS RESPONSIBILITY TO DELIVER A SAFE VEHICLE TO THE DRIVING PUBLIC AND THAT USING PLASTIC ON HEADLIGHT LENSES IS IRRESPONSIBLE AND DANGEROUS. THIS COMPLAINT ADDRESSES ALL AUTO MANUFACTURERS. I SINCERELY HOPE THAT THE NHTSA IS THE RIGHT AGENCY TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM AND THAT I MIGHT HERE BACK FROM YOU REGARDING ANY RESOLUTION THAT MIGHT BE FORTHCOMING.
NHTSA complaint #10449318 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 CADILLAC DEVILLE. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 55 MPH, THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT THE ABS, BRAKE AND TRANSMISSION CONTROL LIGHTS ILLUMINATED. THE CONTACT DROVE THE VEHICLE HOME AND INSPECTED THE BRAKES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALERSHIP BUT THE DEALER COULD NOT FIND A PROBLEM. THE LIGHTS STAYED ILLUMINATED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 60,000. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 100,000.
NHTSA complaint #10325476 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 CADILLAC SEVILLE. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH ON NORMAL ROAD CONDITIONS, THERE WAS A DECREASE IN THE BRIGHTNESS OF THE HEADLIGHTS. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE HEADLIGHT LENS COVER WAS NOT CLEAR AND CAUSED THE HEADLIGHTS TO APPEAR DIM. AS A RESULT, THE CONTACT HAD POOR VISIBILITY WHILE DRIVING AT NIGHT. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE CONTACT WAS CONCERNED OF THE SAFETY RISK INVOLVED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 50,000 AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 55,000. UPDATED 12/30/08.*LJ UPDATED 01/05/09.
NHTSA complaint #10250607 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 CADILLAC SEVILLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE LOW BEAMS ARE INADEQUATE. THE RANGE IS OFF AND LIMITS THE VISIBILITY ON THE ROAD. HE HAS NOTIFIED THE DEALER ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THROUGHOUT THE YEARS; HOWEVER, THEY ONLY INSTALL BETTER BULBS THAT DO NOT CORRECT THE FAILURE. CADILLAC HAS YET TO OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 32,000 AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 68,505.
NHTSA complaint #10215657 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
I WAS INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT ON JULY 16, 2007. I HAD MY CAR TOWED . I WAS TOLD IT WOULD TAKE 1-11/2 WEEKS TO REPAIR. I LATER CALLED TO CHECK ON MY 2002 CADILLAC SEVILLE. I WAS TOLD THEY COULD NOT REPAIR MY CAR BECAUSE THE HEADLIGHT WAS ON A NATIONAL BACKORDER. THEY SAID THERE WERE NO HEADLIGHTS AVAILABLE. MY INSURANCE COVERED A RENTAL CAR FOR 30 DAYS. I WAS THEN TOLD I WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A CAR. IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT I CALL CADILLAC CUSTOMER SERVICE. I DID SO. I SPOKE WITH PATRICIA PAQUETTE AND WAS GIVEN A SERV. REQ. # OF 71-562847807. SHE SAID SHE WOULD CHECK ON MY PROBLEM AND RETURN MY CALL IN 24 TO 72 HRS. SHE CALLED BACK AND SAID SHE WAS REFERRING MY CALL TO THE NEXT LEVEL AND NKEMDILIM NWANKWO WOULD HANDLE IT.. SHE SAID I SHOULD GET A CALL IN 24 RO 72 HOURS. THIS PERSON NEVER CALLED. I CALLED BACK AND LEFT A MESSAGE ON VOICE MAIL AT EXT. 11310. I DID NOT RECEIVE A CALL. I WAS PUT IN CONTACT WITH MS. GARCIA. EXT 11442. SHE SAID SHE WOULD CHECK AND CALL BACK. . SHE DID NOT CALL. I CALLED AGAIN SEVERAL TIMES AND DID NOT GET A CALL BACK. I ASKED TO SPEAK TO HER SUPV.. THE SERV. REP. SAID I COULD NOT SPEAK TO ANY SUPV.R, BUT THAT SHE WOULD ASK HER SUPV. TO CONTACT MS. GARCIA'S SUPV. AND ASK THEM TO CALL ME. I HAVE NOT YET SPOKEN TO A SUPV. I GOT A MESSAGE ON MY ANSWERING MACHINE AT HOME ( AFTER ASKING EVERYONE TO CALL MY CELL #) THAT SAID THE PERSON WAS CALLING FOR MS. GARCIA AND T THE PART MAY BE AVAILABLE AT THE END OF NOVEMBER. DURING THIS TIME, I HAVE BEEN GIVEN SEVERAL POSSIBLE DATES. I THOUGHT CAR COMPANIES WERE TO PROVIDE SAFETY EQUIPMENT FOR THEIR CARS. I HAVE BEEN WITHOUT MY CAR FOR OVER 4 MONTHS. I CAN NOT GET SATISFACTORY INFORMATION OR SERVICE FROM CADILLAC. I AM SURE THERE MUST BE SOME RECOURSE. I CANNOT SAFELY OPERATIVE MY CAR WITHOUT THIS PART. . MY ATTORNEY SUGGESTED I CONTACT THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD. YOU WERE THE CHOICE FROM THEM TO FILE A VEHICLE COMPLAINT.
NHTSA complaint #10210119 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING VARIOUS SPEEDS AT NIGHT, THE HEADLIGHTS WERE NOT BRIGHT ENOUGH. THE VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN TO THE DEALER, WHO DETERMINED THE LENSES TURNED YELLOW AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED.
NHTSA complaint #10175100 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
THE UPPER MOUNT TAIL LIGHT IS NOT LIGHTING. I HAVE SINCE FOUND AFTER SEARCHING THE INTERNET THAT THERE IS A 100% FAILURE RATE OF THE LED DISPLAY IN THESE UPPER TAIL LIGHT OF THE CADILLAC. I OWN A 1998 CADILLAC SEVILLE SLS WHICH HAS THE LEFT HALF OF THE UPPER MOUNT BRAKE LIGHT OUT. THERE ARE REFERENCE THAT THE BRAKE STRIP FAILURE IS DUE TO MOISTURE THAT GETS IN THE STRIP. PLEASE INVESTIGATE BECAUSE IF THIS HAPPENS TO MANY PEOPLE THERE SHOULD BE A RECALL FOR THESE BRAKE LIGHTS. PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU FIND OUT. THE LED DISPLAY WAS MANUFACTURED BY STANLEY ELECTRONICS (I FOUND THAT OUT ON THE INTERNET).
NHTSA complaint #10147810 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
CAR WAS PURCHASED NEW IN 2002. THOUGH IT HAS NEVER BEEN WRECKED, THERE ARE NON-OEM PARTS ON THE CAR. ONE OF THESE PARTS WAS INTENDED FOR THE EXPORT MARKET. SO MY AMERICAN MADE CAR HAS A PART THAT WAS INTENDED FOR THE EXPORT VERSION. THE PART IN QUESTION IS THE DRIVERS SIDE HEADLIGHT ASSEMBLY. MY CONCERN IS THAT IF OTHER BODY PARTS WERE SUBSTITUTED THE CAR MIGHT NOT BE AS CRASH WORTHY AS IT OTHERWISE MIGHT HAVE BEEN.
NHTSA complaint #10141187 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
VEHICLE EXPERIENCED CONDENSATION ON THE FRONT AND REAR LIGHTS. CONSUMER TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER, THEY CHANGED THE BULBS. HOWEVER, THE REASON FOR THE CONDENSATION BUILD UP WAS NOT RESOLVED. *AK TWO INCHES OF WATER ACCUMULATED IN THE REAR LIGHTS SHORTING OUT THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. FRONT BULBS GO OUT WHEN IT RAINS OR WHEN THE VEHICLE SITS OUT OF THE GARAGE.
NHTSA complaint #10097719 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
VEHICLE EXPERIENCED CONDENSATION ON THE FRONT AND REAR LIGHTS. CONSUMER TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER, THEY CHANGED THE BULBS. HOWEVER, THE REASON FOR THE CONDENSATION BUILD UP WAS NOT RESOLVED. *AK TWO INCHES OF WATER ACCUMULATED IN THE REAR LIGHTS SHORTING OUT THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. FRONT BULBS GO OUT WHEN IT RAINS OR WHEN THE VEHICLE SITS OUT OF THE GARAGE.
NHTSA complaint #10097719 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
BRAKE LIGHTS ON MY 93 SEVILLE HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM SINCE DAY ONE. I HAVE REPLACED SOCKETS AND THEY CONTINUE TO BURN OUT, NOT THE BULB BUT THE SOCKETS? I HAVE ASKED OTHER SEVILLE OWNERS AND THEY TOO HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM. WHY HASN'T THIS ISSUE BEEN ADDRESSED BY GM. IT IS A SAFETY ISSUE?
NHTSA complaint #10072837 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
HEADLIGHTS WENT OUT UNEXPECTEDLY. TOOK VEHICLE TO THE DEALER, AND DEALER INDICATED THAT RELAY SWITCH WAS CORRODED DUE TO WINDSHIELD WIPER FLUID GETTING DOWN INTO THE SWITCH. *AK THE CORROSION WAS CAUSED BY THE WINDSHIELD WASHER FLUID SPILLING INTO THE RELAY.
NHTSA complaint #10067005 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
WHILE DRIVING THE CONSUMER SMELLED FUEL. THE FUEL RAIL DEVELOPED A LEAK, AND FUEL LEAKED ALL OVER THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT. *AK THE FUEL RAIL CROSS OVER PIPE BETWEEN THE FUEL INJECTORS, DEVELOPED A PRESSURE FUEL LEAK, AS A RESULT THE FUEL SPRAYED ONTO THE ENGINE. GM CLAIMED TO HAVE NO RECORD OF THE PROBLEM. WHEN THE CONSUMER PICKED UP THE VEHICLE FROM THE DEALER, HE NOTICED THE DEALER HADN'T INSTALLED THE IDENTICAL PART. THE DEALER STATED GM CHANGED THE PART DUE TO PROBLEMS WITH THE FUEL RAIL. THERE WAS A NOISE IN THE ENGINE AREA DUE TO A FAILED WATER PUMP. THE TAIL LAMP BULBS FAILED ALSO. *SCC
NHTSA complaint #10026867 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
1997 CADILLAC REAR LIGHT HOUSINGS IS A DEFECTIVE DESIGN. THESE HOUSINGS CONTINUALLY LEAK CAUSING EXCESSIVE MOISTURE TO BE TRAPPED. WE HAD DELIVERY ON OUR STS ON 10/09/96. THESE HOUSING WERE REPLACED UNDER WARRANTY ON 2/18/97 DUE TO THIS PROBLEM. AGAIN ON 3/25/98, THESE HOUSINGS WERE REPLACED UNDER WARRANTY DUE TO SAME PROBLEM. THE MOISTURE PROBLEM CONTINUED AND WHEN PRESENTED TO DEALER ON 09/07/01 FOR SERVICE, WE WERE TOLD THAT THIS WAS A NORMAL CONDITION AND CADILLAC HAS WASHED ITS HANDS WITH NO REPLACEMENT. THEY HAVE IMPLIED THAT THIS A DEFECTIVE DESIGN AND CAN ONLY BE FIXED BY REPLACEMENT, BUT AT OWNER'S COST. NOW, THIS PROBLEM HAS CONTINUALLY GOT WORSE RESULTING IN CORROSION IN LIGHT BULB SOCKETS CAUSING LIGHT FAILURE. I AM CONCERNED THAT THIS MOISTURE WILL EVENTUALLY CAUSE A ELECTRICAL SHORT RESULTING IN A FIRE, ETC. OR VISIBILITY CONCERNS FOR ON COMING VEHICLES. IS CADILLAC WAITING FOR AN ACCIDENT CAUSED BY THESE CONDITIONS BEFORE THEY REACT????? ALSO REFERENCE TO ODI ID#10014105,8008955,8008954.
NHTSA complaint #10018314 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
I PURCHASED A 1997 CADILLAC STS WITH ALL OPTIONS. THE CAR HAD JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING GO WRONG WITH IT, INCLUDING IT REQUIRING A NEW ENGINE. MANY OF THE PROBLEMS EARLY ON WERE UNDER WARRANTY, BUT LATER ONES WEREN'T. HOWEVER, THE MOST DISTURBING PROBLEM WAS THE REAR TAIL LIGHT ASSEMBLIES. THEY DO NOT SEAL PROPERLY AND ALLOW WATER TO SEEP IN. THIS CAUSES CORROSION OF THE BULB SOCKETS AND EVENTUALLY CAUSES A SHORT THAT BLOWS A FUSE, EXTINGUISHING THE TAIL LIGHTS. OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS A MAJOR SAFETY CONCERN AND THE DRIVER HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING THERE IS AN IMPENDING FAILURE. CADILLAC CUSTOMER SERVICE ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THAT THERE IS NO KNOWN CURE OTHER THAN REPLACEMENT AND THAT THE PROBLEM EXISTS ON SEVERAL YEARS OF THAT MODEL. THE REPLACEMENT COST IS $500 PER SET OF TAIL LIGHTS AND THERE IS NO GUARANTEE IT WILL LAST OR HOW LONG IT WILL LAST. ON E OF THE METHODS PEOPLE HAVE USED IN AN ATTEMPT TO CURE THE ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEM IS TO DRILL HOLES IN THE BOTTOM OF THE LENS TO ALLOW WATER TO ESCAPE. WHEN I LAST TALKED TO THE CADILLAC CUSTOMER SERVICE, THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW ME TO TALK TO THE AVM (ZONE MANAGER FOR THIS DISTRICT), NOR WOULD THEY OFFER TO WORK WITH ME ON REPLACING THE TAIL LIGHT ASSEMBLIES. I BELIEVE THIS IS A CRITICAL SAFETY ISSUE THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED BY GENERAL MOTORS, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE CUSTOMER SERVICE READILY ADMITS IT IS A PROBLEM AND THERE IS NO KNOWN CURE OTHER THAN REPLACEMENT AT THE CUSTOMERS EXPENSE. INCIDENTALLY, THE TAIL LIGHT ASSEMBLIES WERE REPLACED ONCE UNDER WARRANTY WHEN I TOOK THE CAR IN FOR A COMPLETELY UNRELATED PROBLEM. SO, THAT IS EVIDENCE THE PROBLEM WAS WELL KNOWN BY BOTH GM AND THE DEALERSHIP NETWORK. *NLM
NHTSA complaint #10014105 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.