Seville Vs bimmer

[axlon]

From today's perspective do you think the original Seville was a good buy next to imported competition from Mercedes, BMW?

Caddy Seville (206 inches long, 4,300 lbs) $12,479 180 hp, 0-60 mph 11.5 Vs BMW 530i (190 inches long, 3,300 lbs) $9,187 176 hp, 0-60 mph 8.7 seconds.

Seville




Vs


e12 530i

[Robert Hall]

Interesting...the Seville was a radical departure for Cadillac in the mid '70s...but it was still way too heavy and large to be a legit competitor for the 5-series of the day (which was cheaper, lighter, faster, and undoubtably a better handler). Today's STS is much better matched to a comparable 5-series of today, IMHO, though comes up short in some aspects (lack of a manual transmission option).

[Nick]

I'll try to keep my BMW bias at bay, but isn't it obvious that the 5er is the better car? Now, maybe the seville as far as options and overall "cushi-ness" may have won out, but as far as performance and price judging by the specs you listed, the BMW is superior....I guess the Seville would probably compete better with whatever MB produced at the time...

[Robert Hall]

I'll try to keep my BMW bias at bay, but isn't it obvious that the 5er is the better car? Now, maybe the seville as far as options and overall "cushi-ness" may have won out, but as far as performance and price judging by the specs you listed, the BMW is superior....I guess the Seville would probably compete better with whatever MB produced at the time...

Yes, the Cadillac was definitely more of a cushy luxury car (albeit in a smaller form than the battleship Cadillacs of the day)...not remotely a nimble sports sedan like the BMW... it would probably compare more favorably with a Merc S class, though I think the Merc 450SEL was the best all around luxury car of the mid to late '70s...(it's the one I would want had I been in the market in 1975). Edited September 10, 2005 by moltar

[Dsuupr]

The BMW is more of what people would be looking for today. Though back then the Seville was the choice car (not my choice ofcourse).

[z28luvr01]

Dsuupr said it best. The Seville was more in line with American tastes back then.

[LosAngeles]

Two different universes. The Seville was still a big car...it was only a compact in the fact that the Americans were trying to start downsizing. Not to mention it was clearly a luxury and Cadillac wasn't even thinking of Mercedes yet, let alone BMW. Don't know how I would have felt about a 70's Benz back then, but these days I find them boring and not that pretty (of course I'm thinking from a customizer's point of view) The 5-series of that time period may have a BMW intermediate (evenabig car with the 7 yet to be created), but they had yet to become one of America's tastemakers in size or luxury, so that was basically an expensive European small car to non-enthusiasts. I couldn't imagine being my age now in the 70s, knowing what would get ready to happen for the next 30 years. I suppose the Seville would have been my choice, as that's also among cars I like today....

[Drew Dowdell]

That BMW just looks like a bland, eurocar that isn't even in the same class as the Seville. It has no presense. In the Seville you have arrived. In the BMW you simly got there.

Put the BMW next to any other euro car of the same vintage and it is completly anonymous. That it handles great is simply an interesting footnote, it doesn't make it a luxury car. Corvettes handles great also.

1979 Volvo


1979 Saab


Bimmer

[LosAngeles]

That BMW just looks like a bland, eurocar that isn't even in the same class as the Seville.  It has no presense. In the Seville you have arrived. In the BMW you simly got there.

Put the BMW next to any other euro car of the same vintage and it is completly anonymous.  That it handles great is simply an interesting footnote, it doesn't make it a luxury car. Corvettes handles great also.

1979 Volvo


1979 Saab


Bimmer

[post="12270"][/post]

And then there's this:

The Rover Vitesse.

[bobo]

My parents had one of those original Sevilles. It was a car that they had aspired to. BMWs and Mercedes were a little too exotic back then. The '76 to '79 Seville were more in keeping with American tastes than the foreign vehicles, and was much less bargelike than the Fleetwoods and DeVilles, but it had all the luxury. The following generation of Seville, the bustleback from '80 to '85, should have gone even more international, but unfortunately it just became a niche boutique car. It wasn't until the following generation, the mini-Seville, with the STS sub-model, that there were hints of becoming a serious contenter to the foreign competition. The next Seville, from '92 to '96, was more in line of what the Seville should have been from the second generation.

[balthazar]

Cadillac definately was thinking of mercedes in the '70s, as there were a number of internal and publication comparisons (in specs, anyway). And I have to agree with Oldsmoboi; the Seville was a big hit that definately caught the attention of mercedes & bmw (after all, Cadillac was at it's historical & dominating sales high in the late '70s). \

In the late '70s, mercedfes & bmw were changing very quickly to become more & more Cadillac-like (or suited to the American luxury buyers tastes, if you prefer). merceds & Cadillac at least competed very well together then, Cadillac in general equalling or exceeding mercedes of the same price class in performance.

BTW- no one in the mid-70s looked in the luxury class for handling, and those that claimed to and bought the 5-series were a miniscule minority.

Also- the mercedes of today is a lot closer in execution & intent to the Cadillac of yesterday than the mercedes of yesterday.

The Seville is the nicest & most appealing luxury car of the mid- to late-70s, IMO.

[pow]

Some more years...

1989


[img]http://www.stancy.ehc.hu/caddy%203.jpg

1997
[img]http://static.worldnow.com/nctd/images/cars/99bmw540i.jpg[/img]
[img]
[img]http://www.ifcu.com/images/repos/repos_files/Cadillac%20Seville.jpg[/img]

[Robert Hall]

Some more years...

1989



1997

I love those E34 and E39 BMWs...probably my favorite Bimmers overall besides the E36 M3.

[frogger]

Damn that 89 Bimmer is nice.

[Flybrian]

Give me the Cadillacs any day. I like the smoother ride and loads of gadgets that actually have a purpose.

[Drew Dowdell]

Same here fly....


and I can cherry pick also:





Which one of those is the one that tells people you've arrived and which one is some quirky professor at a liberal arts college car?

This one is an easy choice for me:






Bangle... or beautiful?

[Robert Hall]

The current 5-series is growing on me... I never did warm up to the Bangled 7, but I'm liking the 5....the availability of a manual makes the 5-series my choice in a midsize performance-oriented luxury sedan... As far as the '70s/80s models, the older 5 series had a crisp, clean efficiency about them...they weren't luxurious in the old-fashioned sense, but they were the serious driver's choice for a sports sedan--a car that emphasized handling and overall performance and drivability.. That '80s Seville with the white walls and faux wires just looks so gaudy and tacky..(probably appealed to older buyers, though, the same way my dad had his Town Cars with white walls and the padded top throughout the '80s). I think to older generations, a Cadillac or Lincoln truly said 'you've arrived', but to my demographic (30 something, well-educated professionals, in suburbia) a BMW, Lexus, or Mercedes says that and more... Were I at the age I am now (35) then, I'd probably have been driving a 5-series....(I was reading Road & Track then--ever since age 7!). Edited September 11, 2005 by moltar

[pow]

Same here fly....
and I can cherry pick also:





Which one of those is the one that tells people you've arrived and which one is some quirky professor at a liberal arts college car?

This one is an easy choice for me:




Bangle... or beautiful?

[post="12647"][/post]

Bangle-beautiful, of course. And in this day and age, that '78 5-series seems much more classy than that Seville. Where are the wire wheels, gold paint, vinyl roof, and hydraulics? IMO, of course.

[Nick]

I completely agree with empowah. Those old Caddys are just too gaudy for my taste...

[Flybrian]

I would argue that Cadillac is far more refined than this Bimmer.I'm not speaking of stodgy styling motiffs, but merely its 'put-togetherness.'


Cheap exterior rubber molding, tacked-on foglamps, not to mention the chintzy-looking interior. Granted, most midlevel imported luxury cars from the '80s had likewise lousy interiors like midlevel domestics.

If you ask me, the 5er was for the guy who wanted a sports sedan with a little bit of luxury while the Seville was for the guy who wanted a luxury sedan with a little bit of sport.

Still, show me the Caddy.

[LosAngeles]

The warring factions of bias are having one hell of a battle.

[balthazar]

RE the bmw above: FlyBri you're right on the money. It's an 'econocar' in the luxury car field: dangling fogs, lots of exterior plastic, poorly integrated bumpers, exposed wipers, archaic round headlights, giant afterthought signals... some of it is due to 'styling' while some is just trying to catch up to modern hardware & integration standards. The whole package just comes off (within the segment) as cheap & dated.

[Nick]

you can't compare the two cars...the caddy couldn't hold a candle to the bimmer as far as performance, and the bimmer couldn't really hold a candle to the caddy as far as luxury. These are two premium vehicles attracting to different premium markets...one being the premium sports sedan, the other being the premium luxury sedan. The fact that there is a comparison between these two is kind of unfair because they are totally different vehicles. Bimmers were never really that much of luxury vehicles more than they were premium sports cars.

[LosAngeles]

Come on, Nick, you speak as if a 76 530i was right up there with a Ferrari 288GTO. Though it's going both ways, with folks speaking of a 75 Nova-based Seville like it's a Rolls. Both cars did what the manufacturer intended and were never meant to be compared to one another.

[frogger]

According to the first post, the Caddy was 35% more expensive than the BMW, so this comparison isn't very fair.

[Drew Dowdell]

According to the first post, the Caddy was 35% more expensive than the BMW

[post="12786"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

And justifiably so.... Edited September 12, 2005 by Oldsmoboi

[Drew Dowdell]

Some of you <the bimmer lovers> just have no taste. :P

I'll give you that the previoius gen 5er is a handsome vehicle, but the rest of them are just too slapped together looking. If I want something that cuts up a mountain pass I'll buy a Vette or a Miata. I want something with some luxury to it and BMW didn't have any of that till the previous gen 5er.

But really these are two cars that have two different purposes..... yet each one is striving to be more like the other.

The BMW has grown much more luxurious over the years and has lost a bit of it's nimbleness due to size and weight.

The Seville/STS has grown much more slender, sleek and european. It's gained so much ground in handling that it only loses compairos to the BMW because Car and Driver doesn't like the turnsignal or some BS like that.

Each of these cars are still on their respective sides of the fence, but they are much closer together in all aspects these days. Personally, I think it's a bad thing. The BMW is held up as a false ideal. It's not a bad car, but the car rags <and you bimmer lovers> insist that BMW is the only proper car. So then the sheep go out and buy a 5-series and use it a 4/10ths it's abilites.

My 72 year old grandmother went out and bought a 745i because my Uncle told her they were the best even though she's had Park Avenues for as long as they've been building Park Avenues. Do you really think an '06 DTS would have suited her any less?

BMW is a false ideal... and that's that.

[Flybrian]

Hey, Oldsmoboi, let's go buy some Sevilles. :)

[Robert Hall]

And justifiably so....

35% more for a car that is really a gussied-up X-body (with ox-cart rear leaf spring supension)? The Seville may have had more old-school 'luxury' but the BMW was a far superior product both from a hardware perspective and more importantly, a driving perspective...

[balthazar]

First gen Seville is approximately 95% unique and 5% X-Body. Why is it then that approximately 90% of the time I'm still reading misinformed statements like "gussied-up X-body"??

[Robert Hall]

First gen Seville is approximately 95% unique and 5% X-Body.

Why is it then that approximately 90% of the time I'm still reading misinformed statements like "gussied-up X-body"??

I don't know about your percentages, but every article I've read indicates that the 1st gen Seville was built on a modified X-body platform...longer wheelbase and more sound deadener, etc...whatever...

[balthazar]

Sheetmetal-wise: the 2 shared trunk pans- that's it. Just about every single sub-system was likewise brand new or re-engineered. Cadillac did not price the Seville at a then unprecedented $12K because it wanted to; the ground-up engineering & tooling forced it (the Seville was conceived as a $7500 model).

It's another journalistic urban legend that hasn't yet been beaten down by the truth, unfortunately.

[razoredge]

Wow, I have to think back, the BMW was never a thought back in the 70's. BMW ? = big deal. Im sure it was cheaper in price but I just cant figure out why :P I seem to remember a car perhaps called a 321i or 32_i was the first BMW rage but most still said "big deal". THe old 2002 was kinda cool looking but reminded of a VW on the inside = big deal. Old Mercedes ? now that I have a brain and stopped following sheep around are a joke, worthless over priced junk. The SL were the only Mercedes to have any form of attractive styling.

However that Cadillac was something that would have never turned my head either. Its also interesting to hear those that want to find or use Cadillac and sport in the same sentence. Cadillac was never, never GM's sports division or performance division. They were the quite, silent, smoooooth division. Till recently that is, now Caddys place in the world of GM is a bit of a head scratcher because they are in areas that once belonged to BOP.

Wasnt that Seville a B or C body ? it sure looks like it to me. I hated cars during and from that era.

One stylist says to another while moving some boxes out of the way to start the weeks work. "I think were on to something here"

So its 1978 and I have good job and I look at three cars. A BMW 5 blankity blank blank, a Seville and ..................... a 76 Regency with 30,000 miles, geeze I just cant make up my mind B)

[bobo]

The Seville was a K-body, and its styling set the pace for the '77 B and C-bodies. BMWs and Mercedes became much more appealing in the early '80's, especially with the 1982 Mercedes S-Class. And this was the time that the General was beginning to fault.

[axlon]

Consumer Report ran a test of the Seville against the Mercedes 280S in 1976. Although the 450SE would have been a better match engine wise, but the 4.5 liter was priced much, much higer than the Seville. However, since those days the 5 series has been a closer target of the Seville/STS so it's interesting to see how they both looked at the start,lol. ^_^

[Drew Dowdell]

Hey, Oldsmoboi, let's go buy some Sevilles.

:)

[post="12842"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'd love to find a cherry 1985 Seville with the 4100 and drop an LS-x in there.

[LosAngeles]

I'd love to find a cherry 1985 Seville with the 4100 and drop an LS-x in there.

[post="13066"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Why not use a crappy V-8-6-4 or Buick V-6 model?

Unless you aren't talking about the bustleback, but really mean the late 80s version (far more worth it IMO)

[Drew Dowdell]

I am talking about the bustleback. Why would I want either of those engines? A 350 will mate up to it, so if nothing else I can get an LT1 in there.

[LosAngeles]

My point was why does it specifically have to be an HT-4100 model if you're going to yank the engine anyway? Were they still longitudinally mounting engines in the E-bodies at the time?

[Drew Dowdell]

My point was why does it specifically have to be an HT-4100 model if you're going to yank the engine anyway?

Were they still longitudinally mounting engines in the E-bodies at the time?

[post="13740"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Well because there is no such thing as a 1985 Seville with an 8-6-4. that was a 1980 model only. I want the latest model year of bustle back I can get. The diesel and the V6 were generally lower trim Sevilles.

The engines were mounted north/south until the really shortened 1986 model year.

[balthazar]

V8-6-4 was MY 1981 (only) and it was optional equip. on the Seville that year, as opposed to standard on the f/s lines.

I have always liked the 'bustleback' Sevilles and have always kept an eye open for a nasty road-burning custom converted to RWD, but I never saw any done. Also really like the interiors in the 1st & 2nd gens; there's something about them...
I still remember seeing an all red bustleback years ago, no vinyl top with the extra-wide sweepspear moldings, beautifully clean; it really was a stunning car.

[LosAngeles]

The bustleback was the ugliest of all the E-bodies IMO. I can definitely feel where one would consider the car throwaway. The front-drive just makes matters that much worse for enthusiasts. But to those who like them, go for what you know. All the other generations of Seville/STS are OK with me, however (especially the first, fourth, and--tight interior be damned--current version).

[razoredge]

I never like the look either. I did a pretty long road trip in a new one way back and it was surely a fine car.