Talk:Cadillac Seville

Untitled

Is it really true that the Seville is gone? It still has its place on the Cadillac web page. RivGuySC 03:22, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

-- -- -- -- That the 1st gen Seville was a "rebodied Chevrolet Nova down to the brakes" is terrifically misleading. So is "This was the first time Cadillac based one of its vehicles on a Chevrolet model.".

The Seville is a K-Body on a K-chassis, as opposed to an X-Body/ X-chassis. Numerous sources state the only thing aside from the brakes & some of the A/C system that was shared were door hinges & the front floor pan. Major suspension parts & tuning was unique to the Seville. To further state that 'this trend continued with the Cimarron' erroneously implies great interchangability on the Seville/ Nova issue, which is not the case. The Cimarron is well-known as a 'badge-engineered' car (same sheetmetal, engine, interior, etc as the Cavalier), the Seville is 90%+ unique.

The passage harping on the bolt circle & brake specifications is greatly overweighted and of dubious education value.

--WQ59B

Most powerful?

The last ETC/STS models produced 300 hp net. But the 1969-1970 Oldsmobile Toronado produced 375 hp gross. So which is most-powerful? Probably the Toronado... --SFoskett 11:21, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, its not an important point, but the old gross horspower numbers were a minimum of 25% too high when compared to today's net horsepower numbers which would comfortably put the 300 net HP of the final front wheel drive STS and ETC ahead of the Toronado. Additionally, I definately recall Cadillac touting the Northstar-equipped Allante which had 295HP as the most powerful front wheel drive production car ever produced (in 1992-3). But like I said, it probably isn't a super important point in either case. Rawja 21:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• • I usually assume 20% gross-to-net conversion, but even at 25%, they're tied. Both deserve mention as impressive feats, though! --SFoskett 19:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

In popular culture: In "heat" (1995) Neil McCauley drive Cadillac Seville Fourth Generation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.153.172.55 (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Mid-size

I think the Seville was a Full-size car during its first and last Generation, was it? Gerdbrendel 04:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, the Seville was a midsize car until 1992. I forgot to put that in on the table, so you can go ahead and do it. --ApolloBoy 04:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The first generation was Cadillac's compact, it became a mid-size with the introduction of the FWD model in 1980.

You are absolutely right, the last-gen Seville is definitely full-size. A bit wider than both the LeSabre and Park Avenue and heavier than both (only DeVille was heavier, and barely at that), came with the largest engine available in the full-size Hammtrack-assembled G platform, EPA rated it at 104+15 cu.ft. (only 1 away from the upper end of the midsize cutoff). Overall length, 201", or 1" longer than a LeSabre and 2" shorter than a Bonneville. A Seville was almost dead even with the LeSabre when it came to rear legroom. Although I wouldn't normally attach a letter class segment to an American-made car, the Seville was officially intended with Audi, BMW and Mercedes in mind. It was significantly larger than the C5 A6, E39 5 Series, and W210 E-Class, and even slightly larger than standard wheelbase variants of the D2 A8, E38 7 Series, and just about equal to the W140 S-Class in external size. Even the all-wheel-drive A8 4.2 and rear-wheel-drive 740i were around the same weight as a front-wheel-drive Seville STS. Full-size, indeed. 2600:6C50:4000:27D0:5E2:1DB3:ABD9:EB57 (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Misc. questions

Is it true, as has recently been added, that the car was built under license in Iran? Pars Khodro was a GM affiliate, it's true, but I'd never heard they built Sevilles. And the fact that it's an IP edit makes me suspicious.

Also I have doubts about the pink '58 car pictured. I don't see how a four-door can be a Seville, which was a coupe in the 50's, and I don't see the distinctive downswept rear fenders of the '57 & '58 Eldorado. Even the caption on the picture page just says it has replica Seville badges.

I'd say both these things ought to be deleted unless they can be firmly documented. RivGuySC 05:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There is little to like about this article. The photographs may be the worst thing. In fact, this "old" Eldorado Seville is the best picture in the bunch. Hemmings has a page with an ad for a '59 Seville. http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/carsforsale/cadillac/eldorado/1598732.html This suggests that there really were such things regardless of the authors memories. The time line at the end of the Article does not cover the full period the car was being made. The time lines within the Article jump around and are disconnected with the section headings.

Most of this Article is 'original' research and writing. The citations provide weak support for the views of the writers. It has had the following banner for a long time, but the Article has not been improved in any significant manner.

The Seville was a very important vehicle. A car such as this, which was unique at the time, deserves a much better Article. I am very familiar with the cars from the first four years and feel that they promised a turn-around for Cadillac. Few were bothered by its connection to the Nova. The size and the price seemed to be the biggest problems. The competitors were the real failures. The Lincoln was a direct copy of the Grenada and the Monarch. The La Barron was a Dodge Aspen with some different body panels. The later Cimarron by Cadillac was a re-badged Chevy Cavalier with lots of options. On the contrary, the Seville had little at all in common with other GM cars of the same size.

The Seville was luxurious and this model, along with the rest of the Cadillac line, suffered from the 8-6-4 disaster and the market's rejection of the downsizing effort. Ford suffered from the same market problem. The American companies watched the public accept smaller European luxury cars and thought the size was the important factor.

The authors’ claims that the “imported luxury cars had been cheaper, less luxurious and significantly smaller than Cadillacs” is very original on their part but is far off the mark. There is no indication that they ever drove a 1970 Mercedes Benz 600 or a 300SEL or 280SE. I am certain they never looked at the price tags for those cars. Of course, most European cars were smaller and cheaper than Cadillacs. Most American cars were too. The smaller versions of the big cars from Mercedes and BMW maintained the same high quality.

I was not able to read the minds of the Cadillac executives in the same way the writers of this Article could do, but I thought that the Seville design skipped over the German cars and went right at Rolls Royce as far as the external shape was concerned.

Sevilles were very well assembled and the fit and finish was great. I think that was the reason they had some success in the market. It was my opinion that the cost got away from the company. They tried to upgrade the end product without using top quality components. I felt that the performance was poor and the materials were of low quality, given the opportunity Cadillac had with this new product. The car was weak, the drive train was light weight, the rear brakes were an upgrade but only adequate, the shocks were old-school and soft and the steering was slow. The seats were plush in the American way, but the fabric felt a little cheap for the most expensive Cadillac of the time. The leather was lousy when it first became available. It had an artificial texture and I don’t think it ever improved. The seats in my 1978 BMW were rock hard, but the quality of the leather surface was an outstanding contrast to the Seville I rode in regularly. - Komowkwa (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Tailfins

I don't understand this quote in the main section under "1956": "the outlandish tailfins found on the 1959 model that are most remembered". The implication seems to be that the Eldorado Seville had extraordinary tailfins versus other Caddy models of that year; this is not the case. All 1959 Cadillacs, with the exception of the Italian bodied Eldorado Brougham, used the same tailfins. The two-door Eldorado models -- Biarritz convertible and Seville hardtop coupe -- had identical tailfins to those on the other Cadillacs, except that additional chrome followed the rear fender curves as they met the bumper. Again, except for the Brougham, the now iconic soaring fins topped with those twin bullet taillamps, were present on all other Cadillac models for 1959.

Mhrogers (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

In popular culture section

The Popular culture section is currently subject to an edit war, basically over sourcing. The source used for all entries is the Internet Movie Car Database, a usergenerated site. Various IPs (presumably the same user, although geolocating to different parts of the USA) have warred to keep the information in the article, without addressing the concerns raised by User:Asher196 and myself over the validity of this source. I am opening a thread here so that all parties, plus anyone else who's interested, can comment and offer reasons for or against the inclusion of this section in its present form. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The Internet Movie Car Database is user generated and therefore not a reliable source. From their FAQ:

"...anybody can contribute to the site by sending new pictures, complete missing info, add comments about cars or movies..."

The Popular culture section needs to have reliable sources or be deleted. The IMCDB, as a user generated site, doesn't cut it. I support removing the section unless and until it can be reliably sourced. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for a week. This may seem like I'm choosing sides (against the IP, in favor of Yunshuii and Mr. Swordfish). In fact, I am, because policy is abundantly clear here--we need reliable sources, and user generated sites are basically never reliable. As to whether a properly sourced "popular culture" section should be included, I'll leave that up to involved editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If you are "choosing sides" then you should not be editing the article, as you are creating a clear, biased conflict of interest. Due to your own admission, you should self revert your edits. Of course you won't, because the imbalance of power on Wikipedia is clearly tilted, but the Wikipedia conflict of interest says it all. (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. COI editing is strongly discouraged. When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and copyright compliance, accounts may be blocked. COI editing also risks causing public embarrassment for the individuals and groups being promoted. IMDCB is not entirely user generated, and the images that clearly show the Cadillac Seville in each show are also not "user generated", they are actual stills from the shows in question. 67.139.40.166 (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Qwyrxian did not edit the article, other than to put it into semi-protection mode as a result of the revert war. The section is still there, along with the links to the IMCDB. I strongly urge you to read the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources, especially the part about citing user generated sites. You also might want to familiarize yourself with the citation guidelines and in particular current policy on embedded links.

The issue here is not "conflict of interest" or users with an "agenda". It's simply a matter of wiki policy on sourcing. The policy could not be more clear - the IMCDB is not a reliable source, the material under the section in question is not adequately sourced, so it should be removed unless it can be reliably sourced. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed the section as per WP:RS. This shouldn't even be an issue. The IP editor should have been blocked long ago. Sites with user generated content are not reliable sources. This is the very reason Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source. I'll also cite WP:TRIVIA "Trivia sections should be avoided. If they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined."--Asher196 (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I chose sides, but only in the sense that I chose the "follow Wikipedia policy" side. If you do not understand why this site violates our rules on reliable sourcing, come ask me on my talk page and I'll try to explain, but it undoubtedly does. Note that stills from the show are also not RS, since it requires interpretation to figure out exactly what car they are. As a side note, you've completely misread WP:COI--that refers to people who have a real-world interest in something, like editing a WP page about their employer, and has no bearing whatsoever on the current discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Acceleration: I distinctly remember the 1978 Seville as having a 0-60 time of 9.6 seconds, not 11.5 as listed in this article. 69.124.165.228 (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

1988 STS special label, VIN and manufacturing date ?

Something isn't right regarding the info about the special Cars & Concepts label, and the VIN needing to be below 808000, along with the manufacturing date in order to be identified as a 1988 STS.

————————————

“The first 1988 STS's were custom built in June 1988 by Cars and Concepts and announced at the 1988 Detroit Grand Prix. These were available to VIP's within General Motors, the Cadillac Division, some major shareholders and a short list of dignitaries. A special label was affixed to the lower corner of the driver-side front door by Cars and Concepts identifying it as one of the original STS's. 2014 Survivability rate*: 14% (210 remaining).”

————————————

then...

————————————

“The first 1989 STS's were leftovers from the Cars & Concepts run of the 1988 production year and had the special sticker located on the lower part on the inside of the driver's door. These were produced prior to December 1988 for the 1989 production year and are very rare. The last 6 digits of these VIN numbers would be below 808000. As with the 1988 model, a special 3.25" x 2" black/silver chrome label was affixed to the lower inside area of the driver-side front door by Cars and Concepts identifying it as one of the original STS's{ref 7} As of 2014, the survivability rate* of this 1989 model is at about 3% (approximately 57 remaining) per the NHTSA and Broxterman Auto Survivability Rate Chart - BASRC).”

—————————————

I own a 1988 Cadillac Seville STS. I purchased it the Fall of 1989 from a Cadillac dealer, used, still under factory warranty, with about 9,000 (nine thousand) miles on the car. According to the standard “MFD BY GENERAL MOTORS CORP” identification sticker on the lower inside area of the driver-side door (just below the “Tire Loading Information” sticker), the car was manufactured in April 1988, and has a 81xxxx VIN. I still own and drive it. The odometer currently reads just over 220,000 miles.

There is NO special black/silver chrome Cars & Concepts label, nor are there any signs that one of any type was ever present. No rivet holes, no sticky residue from a label that had been removed, no scratches, nothing to indicate any special identification whatsoever. With the exception of the normal, small additional VIN stickers on the front passenger, and both rear doors, there is absolutely no evidence of the special Cars & Concepts label.

I can certainly believe that only those VERY FEW cars for those on the short-list described above for the 1988 Detroit Grand Prix, had the special Cars & Concepts label. But NOT all of the 1988 STS’s which were produced, even if manufactured prior to December 1988 as is implied. Note the the April 1988 GM manufacturing date on my STS, versus the supposed initial custom builds by Cars & Concepts in June 1988.

Perhaps the {ref 7}:

—————————————

“7. Standard Catalog of American Cars 1976-1999 - 3rd Edition; Copyright 1999 by Flammang & Kowalke; pages 167-170”''

—————————————

… is incorrect.

Or - - maybe I own a very, very, very rare 1988 Cadillac Seville STS.

TurboToad (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cadillac Seville. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518081342/http://oldcarbrochures.org/New-Brochures---May/1996-Cadillac-Full-Line-Prestige-Brochure/1996-Cadillac-Full-Line-Prestige-25 to http://oldcarbrochures.org/New-Brochures---May/1996-Cadillac-Full-Line-Prestige-Brochure/1996-Cadillac-Full-Line-Prestige-25
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518081445/http://oldcarbrochures.org/New-Brochures---May/1996-Cadillac-Full-Line-Prestige-Brochure/1996-Cadillac-Full-Line-Prestige-24 to http://oldcarbrochures.org/New-Brochures---May/1996-Cadillac-Full-Line-Prestige-Brochure/1996-Cadillac-Full-Line-Prestige-24

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Original Research

The article needs a significant cleanup: most of the work is original research, completely without actual sourcing. I suspect a good bit of that could be sourced, but clearly a great deal of the article is the pontification of editors interjecting their personal views. 842U (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)