View Full Version : '93-96 Fleetwood vs '00 Cadillac Seville STS

06-03-07, 07:22 AM
Morning dear friends ,
I think this is right place to post this thread .Well, it really draws my interest to learn anything as much as possible about '93-96 FWBs
So, I will try to make a comparison '93-96 FWB vs '00 Cadillac Seville STS .More correctly , I will need your experiences and shed a light on this by your valuable inputs .
This comparison is based on stock cars so no mods is taken .I will compare those cars in a few sections are these below :
Braking distance ,performance ,turning ratio ...
Now, I am narrowing it down .'93-96 FWBs don't have the disks on the rear brakes they all come with drum .As I recall, that wouldn't cause a problem but I have still some question marks on my mind .
1- Do you know stopping distance or braking distance to '93-96 FWB ? (stock)
I assume Seville has a shorter distance but don't know for sure
2-Acceleration ...Stock Seville vs stock '95 FWB ,Seville must be faster but can you really feel that coming from '00 STS to '95 FWB ? Is there really noticeably and convincingly win for '00 STS .
Let's say for 0-60 mph ,0-50 mph ,30-70 mph .
3- Turning radius in other words maneuverability .Ok, you can park easier '00 STS but is FWB really that difficult in regards to parking and maneuverability ? What I wanna learn let's say you make two maneuvers ( one forth and one back) where you park a '00 STS but how about the '95 FWB ? That's really a crucial point for me
I asked a few persons they all said FWB is easier at parking then a W140 S600 albeit it's dimensions .Is it true ?

06-03-07, 02:08 PM
Well, with respect to all your questions.. the STS takes the cake hands down. A stock Fleetwood does not stop well, does not handle well, and is not easy to maneuver.

The only upside of the Fleetwood is the low maintenance costs, cheaper insurance, and reliability.

.. and this is coming from a Fleetwood owner whos brother has owned a 2000 and 2002 STS to compare to.

06-03-07, 02:19 PM
Thank you :)
Well,sorry for asking you a question and taking your time but can you compare your '96 that is a modified one to your brother 2000 ?
What would be the results this time with the respect to aforementioned comparisons ?

06-03-07, 02:33 PM
In its current state, my '96 Fleetwood can probably match or surpass a 2000 STS in all the aforementioned except maneuvering... it is just too long to swing around like you can swing a FWD STS. Even though my Fleetwood is stiff, it still has so much more weight to shift during sudden lane changes and the like.

As for parking, I have grown accustomed to it, mainly because most of the cars I have owned were this big. It is harder to park than most cars, but it is something I deal with, even with the Roadmaster.

One thing the Fleetwood does not have is the crazy torque steer the FWD Northstar cars have. I prefer to have my rear wheels spinning :thumbsup:

06-03-07, 02:57 PM
Thanks again ,your helps much appreciated :)
Somehow ,I will install a rear view camera to be safe and sound parking and make a pattern some of the mods you have done so far when I get a '93-96 FWB as well .
I think I would leave the suspension as it is because I am used to driving comfortable cars so I assume due to the mods in your car you have a firmer and harder suspension than '00 STS .
I also thought of buying a Jaguar XJR prior to buying Cadillac but XJR is said to have a harder suspension than most cars that's why I switched to Northstar Cadillac .
Comfort level is also important to me . Back to parking , I talked to a '93 FWB owner who also owns a '02 W220 MB and says his '93 is way comfortable and easier to maneuver than W140 S600 and only drawback is lenght when parking between two cars .
Agree, I don't like torque steer either and prefer rear wheels spinning :D :bouncy: :highfive:
Thank you