Cadillac Seville Elegante

[Justin Bimmer]

If only I had the resources. . .

1985 Cadillac Seville Elegante

[balthazar]

Decadent! That is a sweet car that still holds up. An '80 mercedees sedan looks pretty ancient in comparison, IMO.

37K and Touring Suspension- wow. Only thing I have against this car is: no motor.

The 2nd Seville in the background has some rubber under it- wonder what the story is there?

And I note one of the exceedingly rare '57-58 Eldorado Broughams in the garage...

[Justin Bimmer]

Yeah that guy indicates he is a serious Cadillac collector. The Elegante was the top top of the line for 85.

[Croc]

Damn I wish I had the money...

[ocnblu]

A darn nice example. I did not remember they had a black interior available, looks classy. With the Touring package, I like to see these with the aluminum wheels and fat blackwalls to better communicate its sporting bent, though.

[Justin Bimmer]

Even the seats in the Elegante trim were waaayy more sporty than regular.

[bobo]

The other Seville is an '81 with the V8-6-4. If that car belongs the seller, it's interesting that he would be keeping that one, but perhaps it has some interesting mods.

[Justin Bimmer]

The seller is a guy I wish would come join C&G so we could talk about all his cool Cadillacs.

[Nick]

I cannot relate to the sentiment in this thread. I honestly think this is one of the most atrocious cars produced by GM. The bustle-back is an especially horrid design element, in my opinion. I suppose you either love it or you hate it.

[balthazar]

I dunno, compared to the '80 Imperial and the Lincoln Versailles, it's extremely crisp and formal. It's not disproportionate, or bulky, or unpleasant or weird,

but it is unique and very different. That's often enough to push some in the opposite direction.

I prefer the 'Sheer' '76-79s; the '80-85 took things in almost the opposite direction; took getting used to for most,

but I do like them, too. But they have no power. 4.1 was what- 135HP? Sheesh.

[ClassyEldo]

The car is beautiful, although it is tarnished by the horrendous 4.1 liter engine! The special editions such as the Elegante were fabulous--and money-makers for GM! Let's hope the "Touring Coupe" package announced for the 2012 CTS Coupe draws upon this heritage to provide a fully "loaded" car!

[Croc]

I cannot relate to the sentiment in this thread. I honestly think this is one of the most atrocious cars produced by GM. The bustle-back is an especially horrid design element, in my opinion. I suppose you either love it or you hate it.

That's cool, you won't be competition when I DO have the money to pursue the purchase of one.

[smk4565]

I looks to be in great condition, looks showroom new. I was never a fan of the bustle back design, but it at least makes the car unique.

The 4.1 liter is a problem, many of these 80s luxury cars had little power, the Town Car for all that mass only had like 150 hp. If you want an 80s luxury car that can go, Mercedes 560SEL is one of the few that isn't slow by today's standards.

[Justin Bimmer]

I cannot relate to the sentiment in this thread. I honestly think this is one of the most atrocious cars produced by GM. The bustle-back is an especially horrid design element, in my opinion. I suppose you either love it or you hate it.

That's cool, you won't be competition when I DO have the money to pursue the purchase of one.

The polarity of the car is one of the things that makes it special.

I looks to be in great condition, looks showroom new. I was never a fan of the bustle back design, but it at least makes the car unique.

The 4.1 liter is a problem, many of these 80s luxury cars had little power, the Town Car for all that mass only had like 150 hp. If you want an 80s luxury car that can go, Mercedes 560SEL is one of the few that isn't slow by today's standards.

I would not be buying the car for power. It is unique. The motor may be a failure, but it is a conversation piece.

[regfootball]

love the humpback seville!

[ponchoman49]

A real luxury car indeed. I would prefer the alloy wheels in place of the gaudy wire covers and the HT 4100 was garbage with 125 HP in 1982 and 135 from 1983-1985. If only Cadillac put a better motor in these.

[riviera74]

A real luxury car indeed. I would prefer the alloy wheels in place of the gaudy wire covers and the HT 4100 was garbage with 125 HP in 1982 and 135 from 1983-1985. If only Cadillac put a better motor in these.

I suspect a lot of people would agree. No Cadillac deserved that 4100. At least the 3800 would have had better MPG, which was the concern back then.

[smk4565]

This car is front wheel drive right, for $2200 you can buy an Aurora V8 and stick that in there and engine problem solved.

[ocnblu]

The Seville engine is mounted longitudinally, the Aurora was transverse. Wouldn't work.

[Drew Dowdell]

The Seville engine is mounted longitudinally, the Aurora was transverse. Wouldn't work.

Aside from the fact that I've seen transverse northstars mounted longitudinally in engine bays large enough to allow it (a '55 Cadillac), why use the Aurora V8 if you're going to do an engine swap? Find a wrecked STS, of any year. The external dimensions are the same, but you get 50 HP more.

Myself, I would swap in an LT-1 at the first hint of a coolant leak.

[67impss]

The Seville engine is mounted longitudinally, the Aurora was transverse. Wouldn't work.

Aside from the fact that I've seen transverse northstars mounted longitudinally in engine bays large enough to allow it (a '55 Cadillac), why use the Aurora V8 if you're going to do an engine swap? Find a wrecked STS, of any year. The external dimensions are the same, but you get 50 HP more.

Myself, I would swap in an LT-1 at the first hint of a coolant leak.

So true and would be a great match smooth power and bullit proof

[ocnblu]

Why on Earth choose to put a transverse Northstar in this Seville when so many longitudinal examples were sold? XLR, SRX, current STS...

[Drew Dowdell]

Why on Earth choose to put a transverse Northstar in this Seville when so many longitudinal examples were sold? XLR, SRX, current STS...

much more available in junk yards.

[SAmadei]

I'm not so sure that the older FWD drivetrain would lineup with a modern FWD drivetrain.

I'd keep the original tranny and put any engine (long. Northstar, transverse Northstar, LT1, LS1, LS4) on the original transaxle with an adaptor and a custom oil pan... keeping the engine longitudinal would give you more working space. Not that space is a big problem on the old E-bods.

Granted, this won't get you a modern 4 speed... but a modern 4-speed would need more computer stuff to run it anyway. Is your current tranny a 3 speed? I don't recall the E-bods having an overdrive.

Edited May 10, 2011 by SAmadei

[Drew Dowdell]

I think he was proposing turning the transverse Aurora by 90 degrees, SA.

You couldn't mount anything but an I4 in one of these transversely because they still have a bit of RWD proportions to them. The engine would end up sitting too far forward and would be into the radiator (which sits a good foot behind the bumper).

I'm not so sure that the older FWD drivetrain would lineup with a modern FWD drivetrain.

I'd keep the original tranny and put any engine (long. Northstar, transverse Northstar, LT1, LS1, LS4) on the original transaxle with an adaptor and a custom oil pan... keeping the engine longitudinal would give you more working space. Not that space is a big problem on the old E-bods.

Granted, this won't get you a modern 4 speed... but a modern 4-speed would need more computer stuff to run it anyway. Is your current tranny a 3 speed? I don't recall the E-bods having an overdrive.

My 81 is a 3-speed, they went 4-speed overdrive across the lineup in '82.

[SAmadei]

I think he was proposing turning the transverse Aurora by 90 degrees, SA.

Ah, yeah... which is what I was thinking... then the trouble is digging up a Northstar to BOP adaptor... I never paid attention to the Northstar/Shortstar pattern. I thought they were thinking of swapping a whole drivetrain.

BOP to Chevy adaptors are pretty easy to do. Shame the TH-325/TH-425 don't have the dual patterns the 200-4Rs have.

You couldn't mount anything but an I4 in one of these transversely because they still have a bit of RWD proportions to them. The engine would end up sitting too far forward and would be into the radiator (which sits a good foot behind the bumper).

Its been eons since I looked over an E-bod... but as I remember it the axles were fairly far forward compared to the modern FWDs... like between the 1/2 and 3/4 cylinders.

Of course, I suppose you could move the radiator forward... but then I'm sure the original E-bod drivetrain is better weighted behind the front axle.

My 81 is a 3-speed, they went 4-speed overdrive across the lineup in '82.

Interesting... TH-325-4L.

The Toro I nearly got for free about 10 years ago I thought had a 4-speed... but I couldn't remember for sure. At the time, I didn't think it was odd, as I was used to the 307/200-4R combos in all the B-bods. I was also more concerned about the other problems with the car (why it was free)... which included an unrecoverable title. So that one probably got scrapped.

Ended up with the $200 '81 Bonneville coupe instead. Ah... the good 'old days when you could get a decent car for dirt cheap.

[Drew Dowdell]

I think he was proposing turning the transverse Aurora by 90 degrees, SA.

Ah, yeah... which is what I was thinking... then the trouble is digging up a Northstar to BOP adaptor... I never paid attention to the Northstar/Shortstar pattern. I thought they were thinking of swapping a whole drivetrain.

BOP to Chevy adaptors are pretty easy to do. Shame the TH-325/TH-425 don't have the dual patterns the 200-4Rs have.

I imagine I'll need to figure out a Chevy to BOP adapter some day. I've always wanted one the these Sevilles and to put an LT-1 in it. It doesn't need to be the fastest thing on the block, but I do want it to accelerate with a Cadillac like authorati!

You couldn't mount anything but an I4 in one of these transversely because they still have a bit of RWD proportions to them. The engine would end up sitting too far forward and would be into the radiator (which sits a good foot behind the bumper).

Its been eons since I looked over an E-bod... but as I remember it the axles were fairly far forward compared to the modern FWDs... like between the 1/2 and 3/4 cylinders.

Of course, I suppose you could move the radiator forward... but then I'm sure the original E-bod drivetrain is better weighted behind the front axle.

Your recollection of the axle location is exactly right.

[SAmadei]

I imagine I'll need to figure out a Chevy to BOP adapter some day. I've always wanted one the these Sevilles and to put an LT-1 in it. It doesn't need to be the fastest thing on the block, but I do want it to accelerate with a Cadillac like authorati!

They are out there... not too hard to find... most will only add 3/4 to an inch or so. Chevy to BOP is probably more common due to all the BOP people adding non-dual Chevy-only adaptor 700R4s. But I suppose they will work in either direction, reversed, depending on which side you need the starter on, if the starter was too even interfere.

A stock LT1 is probably as crazy as you could get on that tranny... beyond that I'd imagine torque steer, traction and reliability would be an issue. Of course, I'd look into TH-425 fitment... and a big Olds 455 mill... but thats getting pricy... and likely would still be a serious traction problem.

I guess I would look into converting to RWD if I really was going to go nuts with one of these. I can't imagine its so impossible.

[Robert Hall]

I suppose w/ some work a Caddy 425 or 500 could be fitted...that would be brand-appropriate, though I don't know if such a beast could be made to pass emissions. A Chevy or Olds engine just seems inappropriate.

[Drew Dowdell]

I imagine I'll need to figure out a Chevy to BOP adapter some day. I've always wanted one the these Sevilles and to put an LT-1 in it. It doesn't need to be the fastest thing on the block, but I do want it to accelerate with a Cadillac like authorati!

They are out there... not too hard to find... most will only add 3/4 to an inch or so. Chevy to BOP is probably more common due to all the BOP people adding non-dual Chevy-only adaptor 700R4s. But I suppose they will work in either direction, reversed, depending on which side you need the starter on, if the starter was too even interfere.

A stock LT1 is probably as crazy as you could get on that tranny... beyond that I'd imagine torque steer, traction and reliability would be an issue. Of course, I'd look into TH-425 fitment... and a big Olds 455 mill... but thats getting pricy... and likely would still be a serious traction problem.

I guess I would look into converting to RWD if I really was going to go nuts with one of these. I can't imagine its so impossible.

Going RWD is sacrilege on these, and there is no torque steer due to the way the half shafts are set up being nearly identical in length on either side.

A Roadmaster could be a good engine to start with. It would lead to 0-60 times in the 6.75 - 7.5 range. The Roadmaster sedan was capable of a flat 8.0

[hyperv6]

Sorry but I did not like these back then and never warmed to them no matter how much I tried over the years.

This is the one I loved and the one my Uncle owned. It even had real wire spoked wheels from the factory.

A family friend just sent his 1985 Seville to the great junk heap in the sky. He just flat wore it out and was having a hard time getting parts. It was in such poor shape it would have cost more to restore vs it was worth.