GTP Cool Wall: 1992-1997 Cadillac Seville

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wiegert
  • 54 comments
  • 5,936 views

1992-1997 Cadillac Seville

  • Total voters
    107
  • Poll closed .
Wiegert

Wiegert

Premium
Messages
13,407
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
1992-1997 Cadillac Seville nominated by @Tornado

1992_Cadillac_Seville_STS_015_1852.jpg


Body Style: 4-door sedan
Engines: 4.9L V8, 4.6L V8
Horsepower: 4.9L V8 - 200 hp, 4.6L V8 - 300 hp, 4.6L V8 - 275 hp
Torque: 4.9L V8 - 275 lb-ft, 4.6L V8 - 295 lb-ft, 4.6L V8 - 300 lb-ft
Weight: ~1700 kg
Transmission: 4-speed automatic
Drivetrain: Front-engine, front wheel drive​

1992-1994_Cadillac_Seville.jpg

cadillac_seville_sls_sedan_7.jpeg

1992-cadillac-seville-touring-sedan.jpg
cadillac-seville-sts-1992-97-3.jpg

Corbis-42-17648559.jpg
1996_cadillac_seville_4_dr_sts_sedan-pic-8593965842972491273.jpeg
 
I like the styling, but they aren't cool.
 


I bet if some foreign car got in an accident it wouldn't lead to the entire Holland Tunnel exploding, and then 90 more minutes that are so unwatchable you wished you rented Cliffhanger instead.
 
1992. Holy clap.

Cool.

DAMMIT. Voted meh.
 
Always liked these.

Cool.
 
There are two types of people I see driving these, old people and drug dealers. Neither of those are particularly cool groups.

Seriously Uncool
 
I like the way these look.

low cool.
 
Last edited:
Actually quite good looking in a bland 90s GM sorta way.
 
I would say "Cool" if I saw a red one on the streets over here. *cough* @Tornado *cough*
 
I got to admit the Styling is good, however everything else is exactly what was wrong with GM at the time.

A car like this should never be FWD.

a High Meh
 
Dennisch
The drivetrain doesn't matter on a comfort cruiser.
Click to expand...
Ehhh... sorta. I'm still thinking how I want to vote for this, but the weird dual role this car was forced into is one of my main knocks against it. Just trying to think how to put it to paper.
 
Last edited:
Overweight, underpowered, failwheeldrive with autotragic. Off to the deepest pits of Seriously Uncool you go.
 
Uncool, because pensioners and wise-guys from Jersey.
 
Leonidae@MFT
5-series of the era for example.
Click to expand...
Made from around 110 hp to around 280 hp. (Excluding the E34 M5) And weighted from around 1450 kg to around 1750 kg.

You could be more specific about which 5-Series you meant.
 
Leonidae@MFT
5-series of the era for example.
Click to expand...
The E34 540i had 282 horsepower and weighed from 1700 to 1750 kg depending on options/years. The Seville STS had 295-300 horsepower and weighed from 1720-1770 kg depending on options/years. The latter was handily the faster of the two, since the manual with the 540 was basically a unicorn. The pre-Northstar cars were underpowered, but were also quite a bit lighter so they weren't terribly slower than any of the competition besides the Q45 and 400E. When the E39 540i came out it was like lambs to a slaughter, and even the 535 was enough to match the STS; but the E39 did that to everyone so it's hardly the fault of a car that was about to be replaced anyway.




So in comparison to what?
 
Last edited:
It's an American car so it automatically sucks even if it actually doesn't. I would think everyone would know how he operates by now...

dont-feed-the-troll.jpg~c200
 
Tornado
The E34 540i had 282 horsepower and weighed from 1700 to 1750 kg depending on options/years. The Seville STS had 295-300 horsepower and weighed from 1720-1770 kg depending on options/years. The latter was handily the faster of the two. The pre-Northstar cars were underpowered, but were also quite a bit lighter so they weren't terribly slower than any of the competition besides the Q45 and 400E.




So in comparison to what?
Click to expand...
To be fair take out the Northstar and it's completely underpowered for the body and the engine size.
The 4.9L was a joke mostly, it was heavy as well, atleast with the 5 series the lower you went the smaller the engine got so the weight went down as well, for Similar power in the E34 the BMW had a 2.5L in the 525i but that isn't comparable because that is a good 100kg lighter, power to weight wise the 523i was comparable.

Also the 540i was considerably Faster to 62mph 6.3 for the 540i
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_5_Series_(E34)

0-60mph times were 7.4 seconds for the SLS and 7.1 seconds for the STS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Seville#cite_note-11 (go to 4th gen)
 
Last edited:
Dennisch
Which compared to this, looks like an absolute Bavarian turd.
Click to expand...
You been going to those Coffee shops again?


Tbh the E39 was only good in the M Sport kits though the rest looked incredibly boring.
 
mustafur
You been going to those Coffee shops again?


Tbh the E39 was only good in the M Sport kits though the rest looked incredibly boring.
Click to expand...

Ehm. That's what I'm saying. Bavarian turd.
 
Back