Cadillac Owners Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
99 Seville STS
Joined
·
31 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I've been trying to figure what our older Caddies are comparable to from Germany and Japan. I guess these (including ETC / ELC) were the top of the line so I suppose they need to be compared to the top of what other countries had to offer. Aside from the BMW 7 series, I'm not sure what those are. :noidea: Ultimately, I wanted to do a little research (perfomance wise) and see how our cars stacked up then. All the ads from the era said that these cars were "world class". I wanted to find out how accurate that was in hindsight.:)
 

·
Administrator
2002.5 F55 CORSA STS, 2014 Explorer XLT FWD
Joined
·
71,102 Posts
It all depends on whose advertising you truly believe or your direct, hands-on experience with a lot of "world class" cars.

Everyone has a subjective opinion, and every car/brand/model has a following.

Essentially it's your call ------ You would be crazy to accept a statement on the Internet like "Oh, the 1998.5 Hupster is the best car on the road" or some such.

We all know of other car forums in which every other brand/model different from the forum title is junk. Undoubtedly the Lexus (Toyota), Infiniti (Datsun), BMW, and Mercedes owners think we're dirt, and vice versa.
 

·
Registered
99 STS, White Diamond
Joined
·
792 Posts
Beginning in 1998, Cadillac quite aggressively marketed the Seville (and perhaps Eldorado) to luxury buyers in Europe. The Seville was even available from the factory with right hand drive in '98 and '99. The closest competitors of the time were likely the BMW 7 series, Mercedes S-Class, Lexus LS400 and the Jaguar XJ. Again, I'm not sure if Cadillac marketed the Eldorado similarly as it's far larger than most European luxury coupes.

The Seville did not receive particularly good reviews in the European press and the strategy was considered a failure. While they seemed to consider it a decent car (at least for an American) it was deemed too large, too gas hungry, not up to the "best" European performance standards and of inconsistent build and material quality. U.S. reviewers (at least those who aren't Euro-snobs) seemed far more impressed, frequently commenting about how Cadillac did such a good job making a car that both looked and performed smaller than it really is and got surprisingly good fuel economy in "normal" driving. My personal opinion is that there are a number of reviewers who simply don't like ANY American car and would sooner bait an alligator with their manhood than give an overall "good" rating lest their like-minded peers do it for them...
 

·
Registered
1994 sts
Joined
·
809 Posts
My personal opinion is that there are a number of reviewers who simply don't like ANY American car and would sooner bait an alligator with their manhood than give an overall "good" rating lest their like-minded peers do it for them...

I agree. Ever seen Top Gears review of the CTS-V? It kicked the Audi's ass on the track and they're complaining because the door chimes and they just hate all American interiors.
 

·
Registered
99 STS, White Diamond
Joined
·
792 Posts
I agree. Ever seen Top Gears review of the CTS-V? It kicked the Audi's ass on the track and they're complaining because the door chimes and they just hate all American interiors.
And it's not just at the high end. While I generally respect the objectivity and independence of Consumer Reports, they truly seem to have an inherent bias towards Japanese vehicles.

Cases in point:

Through at least the mid-1980s they called such things as power windows and power seats, "Needless complexity that only adds to weight and increases fuel consumption." This continued until such became virtual standard equipment on "family" Japanese sedans when instead of calling them "needless complexity", they would comment on the switches saying things like the "push forward to raise" switches on American cars "lack ergnomics" compared to those stupid, "pull up to raise" switches once common in nearly all Japanese cars.

Personally, the best interior I've ever seen was in loaded Chrysler Cordobas. Too bad the damned things wouldn't start in damp weather...

Their reviewers can barely hide their enthusiasm about testing the latest, most expensive Lexus, yet they rarely test a Cadillac and never tested the last model Seville. I recall head-to-head comparison between a Lexus, an Infinity and a Continental where they said that, "While the sensors showed that the Continential was the quietest and you could scarcely hear a lawnmower when inside, our reviewers consider the Lexus the quietest." Then they had the nerve to directly compare engine power and performance between the high power V8s newly available in Japanese sedan to the V6 in the Continental.
 

·
Registered
99 Seville STS
Joined
·
31 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I like my STS a lot. It's my "sanctuary". I hope the novelty doesn't wear off. Anyway, I was just wondering where "what I like" falls in the grand scheme of things. I have a Jeep Cherokee (XJ) that I think is the best car for the money, bar none. I know others will disagree but that wont change what I think. It's inexpensive to buy and maintain, it's simple to work on (unlike the STS), it's reliable, relatively quick, and nothing will stop it (not even a brick wall! I've seen quite a few pictures of Cherokees that went through brick walls and still looked pretty good. I don't know why so many Cherokee owners feel the need to drive through brick walls. I guess because they can??)

So the europeans and bias people didn't like the STS. I can understand there is a subjective opinion involved in all reviews, but I was wondering how it compared to the best of other countries on an objective scale (1/4 mile, skid pad, and such). Now that I know what the competition is I can see how the STS stacks up.
Thanks
 

·
Registered
2016 Honda Accord LX. Previous: 2004 Deville, 2000 STS
Joined
·
3,718 Posts
The Seville STS should have been a RWD car if Cadillac was serious about building a sports sedan. It didn't handle as well as the competition, only beat the 6 cylinders in the runs to 60 mph (STS was 6.5 seconds, 540i around 5.8, GS400 around 6 seconds, E420 maybe a little slower), wasn't nearly as well built, and was generally considered a bland looking car (I completely disagree, i find it stately and elegant).

Overall, as a sports sedan the Seville STS failed. As a luxury sedan it was considered much more of a success, and had the added benefit of handling decently for what it was - an overweight, FWD sedan. I still love mine and wouldn't trade it for anything, but I would have never paid $52k for mine brand new.
 

·
Registered
Cadillac
Joined
·
90 Posts
the S-class mercedes and 7 series BMW are much larger than the seville. those cars are more like a comparable to the deville.

for a seville comparison its the E-series mercedes and 5 series bmw that are closest.

If you for some reason wanting to compare the cts, its the C-class mercedes and 3 series bmw.
 

·
Registered
2000 Polo Green Metallic Cadillac STS 60K
Joined
·
787 Posts
the S-class mercedes and 7 series BMW are much larger than the seville. those cars are more like a comparable to the deville.

for a seville comparison its the E-series mercedes and 5 series bmw that are closest.

If you for some reason wanting to compare the cts, its the C-class mercedes and 3 series bmw.
I wouldnt quite say that. The S-class and 7-series are larger, but they are truely sports luxury sedans. The deville is a road boat and will never be in the same class as those beast.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top