Caddy Vs BMW

  • Thread starter Thread starter MattC
  • 83 comments
  • 2,886 views
I still don't understand why the 350ci 1975 Seville had a higher list price than the 500ci full size Deville. I think GM were paving the way for the 1981 Cimarron, pay more, get less.:)
 
Mr. McShake
You don't buy sedans for performance anyways. It's all about style and the Caddy gots style.

You don't? Since when?

Although I won't disagree with the second part, Cadillacs do indeed have style.
 
Flerbizky
Is this statement based solely on the post above yours ?...


No it's because I have recieved central intelligence information of him not only being a moron, but he's also building weapons of mass destruction.
 
lol caddy and style. Only cause all these rappers like to buy them these days and do them up. Back when both were out the BMW looked nicer and was the better car.

It was more elegant also being european.
 
Poverty
lol caddy and style. Only cause all these rappers like to buy them these days and do them up. Back when both were out the BMW looked nicer and was the better car.

It was more elegant also being european.

How exactly did you become an expert on Cadillacs? They didnt start selling them in Europe up untill a few years ago, right?

Cadillacs for a long time were the leaders in automotive styling here in the United States. Look at cars like the Cadillac 61, ahead of its time for pre-war America...


Or the classic Eldorados...



How about the infamous Coupe DeVilles?



I'd say that Cadillac (overall) has outdone BMW in the styling department long before BMW was a serious car company post WWII. Although the styling of the modern Cadillacs may not be liked by everyone, they stand out compared to other Mercedes, Lexus, Audi, etc. models when lined up... And thats something special, even when its comming from Cadillac.
 
thats only true if you appreciate the overwrought and overdone styling that cadillac used to employ back in the fifties and sixties, when baubles were a big thing.

BMW, until recently, has always had clean understated styling that aged very well. compare any era BMW to its cadillac counterpart and the caddy usually looks aged and period. only in the bangle era has BMWs styling gone awry.

but then again, its a subjective issue
 
What about the Seville and Eldorado introduced in 92? Both of those could still be sold as new cars and they'd look the part, neither one is dated. Hell, sit my car next to any of BMW's sedans from the day, and I've got five bucks that says my car will turn more heads.

Old BMW's look like old BMW's. They looked like crap until the 90's, the same can be said about Cadillacs.
 
YSSMAN
How exactly did you become an expert on Cadillacs? They didnt start selling them in Europe up untill a few years ago, right?

Cadillacs for a long time were the leaders in automotive styling here in the United States. Look at cars like the Cadillac 61, ahead of its time for pre-war America...

Yeah but they still handled like pigs and mercedes was ahead of their time too. Except they dint handle like pigs most of the time.

And im talking about BMWs in america during the 70's. They were considered as prestigous elegance taht only the really rich could afford.

And the seville doesnt look modern at all. Its like saying a 240gl is modern looking.
 
Ghost C
What about the Seville and Eldorado introduced in 92? Both of those could still be sold as new cars and they'd look the part, neither one is dated. Hell, sit my car next to any of BMW's sedans from the day, and I've got five bucks that says my car will turn more heads.

while they were both a leap forward in terms of cadillac styling, they are still rather bland. which is good believe it or not. thier styling has held up very nicely because of that. nicer than an E34 bmw that came a few years before? i dont think. definitely not nicer than an E39 which came only a few years later. which has only just been replaced with that bangle designed monstrosity.

id put the 8 series up on the eldorado anytime and the eldo would lose big time. BIG TIME. each time. probably would have a lot more problems, but it wins on style no competition.

Old BMW's look like old BMW's. They looked like crap until the 90's, the same can be said about Cadillacs.

nicely preserved models of each are percieved differently. i see some little old lady puttering around in her cadillac and i immediately get an 80s vibe or 70s vibe. i see the same litlle oldlady puttering around in her BMW and i think "damn that car is clean!!!" the styling is not as blatantly period. it ages better.

but it comes down to personal taste.
 
Poverty
And im talking about BMWs in america during the 70's. They were considered as prestigous elegance taht only the really rich could afford.

Ummm, not really in the 1970s. BMW really did not become the marque that it is today (atleast in the US) untill the latter part of the 1980s, into the 1990s. Their cars werent put together particularly well, nor did they hold up as well as the Mercedes, Cadillac, and Lincoln competition. Of course, BMW did eventually change all of that, and to this day have some of the most notorious automobile models ever made, but in the US, the BMW phenominon has only been around for a little more than 20 years.

You have to keep in mind Poverty that in the 1970s, most of the people who would have been buying these cars were either businessmen or retirees. Those retirees often jumped for the Cadillac or Lincoln, as they were still bitter about WWII, and could give two hoots about the sporting abilities of a BMW or Mercedes. Owning a Cadillac or a Lincoln in America was a status thing up untill the 1980s, and thereafter the Germans generally dominated the luxury car market.

...I'm not going to argue against BMW styling, I like it very much. Although Bangle has done his best to practically destroy the good looks BMW has built part of it's reputation uppon, the new 3-Series looks outstandingly good both as a Coupe and Sedan.

As it was said before, it is subjective I suppose, but I can't help to defend Cadillac, as they have made some of the best looking cars to ever be built (atleast, IMO).
 
YSSMAN
Ummm, not really in the 1970s. BMW really did not become the marque that it is today (atleast in the US) untill the latter part of the 1980s, into the 1990s. Their cars werent put together particularly well, nor did they hold up as well as the Mercedes, Cadillac, and Lincoln competition. Of course, BMW did eventually change all of that, and to this day have some of the most notorious automobile models ever made, but in the US, the BMW phenominon has only been around for a little more than 20 years.

You have to keep in mind Poverty that in the 1970s, most of the people who would have been buying these cars were either businessmen or retirees. Those retirees often jumped for the Cadillac or Lincoln, as they were still bitter about WWII, and could give two hoots about the sporting abilities of a BMW or Mercedes. Owning a Cadillac or a Lincoln in America was a status thing up untill the 1980s, and thereafter the Germans generally dominated the luxury car market.

👍

He's right, Poverty.

YSSMAN
...I'm not going to argue against BMW styling, I like it very much. Although Bangle has done his best to practically destroy the good looks BMW has built part of it's reputation uppon, the new 3-Series looks outstandingly good both as a Coupe and Sedan.

As it was said before, it is subjective I suppose, but I can't help to defend Cadillac, as they have made some of the best looking cars to ever be built (atleast, IMO).

I disagree a little here. I actually like pretty much all of the new BMW designs, and have never really cared for any Cadillacs...but that's just my opinion. :)
 
neanderthal
while they were both a leap forward in terms of cadillac styling, they are still rather bland. which is good believe it or not. thier styling has held up very nicely because of that. nicer than an E34 bmw that came a few years before? i dont think. definitely not nicer than an E39 which came only a few years later. which has only just been replaced with that bangle designed monstrosity.

id put the 8 series up on the eldorado anytime and the eldo would lose big time. BIG TIME. each time. probably would have a lot more problems, but it wins on style no competition.



nicely preserved models of each are percieved differently. i see some little old lady puttering around in her cadillac and i immediately get an 80s vibe or 70s vibe. i see the same litlle oldlady puttering around in her BMW and i think "damn that car is clean!!!" the styling is not as blatantly period. it ages better.

but it comes down to personal taste.

maybe its just the propeller logo on the blue and white sky. 8-series did not look any better than Eldorado. Indeed it did look sporty (sleek), but it also looks fragile than the Cadillac at the same time. The Cadillac has a massive presence (like the Rolls Phantom, the uglyiest Rolls in century and a shoebox on wheels...) and that's what Americans and Canadians liked until the compact car boom came around. I personally think that the older BMW styling (before the E36) looked average, but those Cadillacs had distinctive style.

the new BMW styling just destroyed the awesome style of the mid-90s. The '99 745i, '00 M5 and '95 330i looked the best. Now all of them just suck. They don't look like expensive cars, expecially the 7. Look at the new trunk lights. It has this awkward gap where the bottom of the trunklight and the fender parts meet. I mean, why didn't they just make it one uniform taillight? Its stupid. When I saw the new 3 series I couldn't believe that car mags were praising the design as ..."clean, modern look" I turned away from the big cut out picture it had because I couldn't bear to look at it. The E46 or even the E36 looked much more BMW-ish and its certainly better looking by miles. If I'm going to buy a BMW, I will no doubt buy the E46 or E36. Not E90. Not a chance.
 
GT4_Rule
maybe its just the propeller logo on the blue and white sky. 8-series did not look any better than Eldorado. Indeed it did look sporty (sleek), but it also looks fragile than the Cadillac at the same time. The Cadillac has a massive presence (like the Rolls Phantom, the uglyiest Rolls in century and a shoebox on wheels...) and that's what Americans and Canadians liked until the compact car boom came around. I personally think that the older BMW styling (before the E36) looked average, but those Cadillacs had distinctive style.

i like how you state that as fact, whereas i have been stating it as personal opinion. no way will you get me to say the eldo was better looking in any capacity than the 8. it boils down to personal preference. i think the BMWs are prettier you dont.
dont state your position as fact. it aint.

the new BMW styling just destroyed the awesome style of the mid-90s. The '99 745i, '00 M5 and '95 330i looked the best. Now all of them just suck. They don't look like expensive cars, expecially the 7. Look at the new trunk lights. It has this awkward gap where the bottom of the trunklight and the fender parts meet. I mean, why didn't they just make it one uniform taillight? Its stupid. When I saw the new 3 series I couldn't believe that car mags were praising the design as ..."clean, modern look" I turned away from the big cut out picture it had because I couldn't bear to look at it. The E46 or even the E36 looked much more BMW-ish and its certainly better looking by miles. If I'm going to buy a BMW, I will no doubt buy the E46 or E36. Not E90. Not a chance.


im not going to argue with you there. the previous generation everything were much better looking BMWs than this crap were seeing today. even teh generation before them.
 
neanderthal
i like how you state that as fact, whereas i have been stating it as personal opinion. no way will you get me to say the eldo was better looking in any capacity than the 8. it boils down to personal preference. i think the BMWs are prettier you dont.
dont state your position as fact. it aint.

Alright.

Its our opinions.

My opinion =/= Your opinion

OK?
 
I think that even the Caddy CTS-V proves people do buy sedans looking for performance, and BMW helped make that an acceptable concept.👍
 
MattC
I think that even the Caddy CTS-V proves people do buy sedans looking for performance, and BMW helped make that an acceptable concept.👍

I completely agree. If it were not for the M-series cars from BMW, we wouldnt have AMG, S-line Audis, or V-series Cadillacs (along with the rest of the performance teams poping up in EVERY company).

I just wish buying an M-car meant you were buying something that was a bit more minimal like the older models. Now that the M5/M6 and presumably the new M3 are all run by computers, it kinda sucks the soul out of the once great M-brand.
 
put 40 to 50k in 75 money...and your looking at half a MILLION, i think

i'd be buying Apple stock, a few barrells of oil, an Excalibur or two, a leftover Stude Avanti, and a couple AMX's...all for collectors value :D
 
Has anyone seen the reviews done by Top Gear on the Cadillac CTS'? Every time they say the same thing, the car is great on the outside and mechanically speaking, but the interior is rubbish...

Ya know, I like Clarkson, I think hes a good guy. But when he completely writes off every American car simply because its American, that itself is rubbish. I just watched a clip where he and Hammond go through some American models that arent sold in Europe, and he completely tears every single one apart. Cars like the Solstice, SSR, and even the Mustang GT are completely written off by Clarkson simply because they are American. I can understand why they hate the Aztec, but the ones mentioned above arent bad.

...Atleast Hammond thinks with his head, and actually considers that an American car might be a decent drive...
 
YSSMAN
Has anyone seen the reviews done by Top Gear on the Cadillac CTS'? Every time they say the same thing, the car is great on the outside and mechanically speaking, but the interior is rubbish...

Ya know, I like Clarkson, I think hes a good guy. But when he completely writes off every American car simply because its American, that itself is rubbish. I just watched a clip where he and Hammond go through some American models that arent sold in Europe, and he completely tears every single one apart. Cars like the Solstice, SSR, and even the Mustang GT are completely written off by Clarkson simply because they are American. I can understand why they hate the Aztec, but the ones mentioned above arent bad.

...Atleast Hammond thinks with his head, and actually considers that an American car might be a decent drive...

Yeah I agree.

If it weren't for all these prejudice then GM and Ford might be doing better than this pitiful state.
 
Well...yeah, they did dig their own graves by poor quality, brand overlap and other factors...but the consumer prejudice was and is and probably will play a part in the demise of the two giants.

Look at an example. The Ford Five Hundred isn't too badly built. In fact, they are pretty good. But sales have been slow because of:
1. Low hp rating (almost too low - they used to guzzle gas, now its too frugal, and on the way they reduced hp too...203hp 3.0L V6 for that car?)
2. Bland design.
3. The blue oval.

I swear that Five Hundred (at least in my eyes) look better than Acura TL or RL, if they are in the same class, that is. TL looks just like a spin-off of TSX, with bigger everything. The old EL used to look just like a Civic..I mean, that's badge engineering.

Anyone think different or same as me? Let's have a debate :sly: :lol:
 
YSSMAN
Has anyone seen the reviews done by Top Gear on the Cadillac CTS'? Every time they say the same thing, the car is great on the outside and mechanically speaking, but the interior is rubbish...

Ya know, I like Clarkson, I think hes a good guy. But when he completely writes off every American car simply because its American, that itself is rubbish. I just watched a clip where he and Hammond go through some American models that arent sold in Europe, and he completely tears every single one apart. Cars like the Solstice, SSR, and even the Mustang GT are completely written off by Clarkson simply because they are American. I can understand why they hate the Aztec, but the ones mentioned above arent bad.

...Atleast Hammond thinks with his head, and actually considers that an American car might be a decent drive...

Well overall he was impressed with the CTS-V and it did out do that Audi with the stig driving.
 
YSSMAN
Has anyone seen the reviews done by Top Gear on the Cadillac CTS'? Every time they say the same thing, the car is great on the outside and mechanically speaking, but the interior is rubbish...

Ya know, I like Clarkson, I think hes a good guy. But when he completely writes off every American car simply because its American, that itself is rubbish. I just watched a clip where he and Hammond go through some American models that arent sold in Europe, and he completely tears every single one apart. Cars like the Solstice, SSR, and even the Mustang GT are completely written off by Clarkson simply because they are American. I can understand why they hate the Aztec, but the ones mentioned above arent bad.

...Atleast Hammond thinks with his head, and actually considers that an American car might be a decent drive...

I agree with Top Gear -- Cadillac's interiors are rubbish.

Actually, his reasons for not liking the Solstice were that its styling copies European manufacturers like TVR, and its engine output was a mere 170hp from 2.4L (Clarkson is more of a horsepower man than a torque man -- he absolutely adores the S2000's engine, and VVT-equipped four-cylinders in general). The Mustang was written off because of its live-axle, and the SSR because it's a curvy convertible pickup truck (I agree with Clarkson, I think that thing is stupid :odd: ).

The thing to remember is that Top Gear puts down all kinds of cars for all kinds of silly reasons, and that segment in particular -- with the Solstice, SSR, etc. -- was more entertainment than it was evaluation.
 
Wolfe2x7
I agree with Top Gear -- Cadillac's interiors are rubbish.

I'm not willing to get into this argument all over again, but take it from someone who owns a Cadillac - You, and Top Gear, are wrong.
 
Wolfe2x7
The thing to remember is that Top Gear puts down all kinds of cars for all kinds of silly reasons, and that segment in particular -- with the Solstice, SSR, etc. -- was more entertainment than it was evaluation.

Yeah just like how he puts down the Nissan 350Z, doesn't worry me, I find it funny watching Jeremy putting them down and Richard defending them.
 
My mum's Audi TT is "boring".

It doesn't really bother me. It's exciting enough for a small village in West Yorkshire, England.

If we were to buy something interesting, for the sake of arguement let's call it a Daihatsu Copen, we'd be charged with mass murder, since everyone would have died of shock.
 
Back