(first posted 4/8/2014) Read any Cadillac review from the past decade and you’ll get the impression that Cadillac had simply been peddling crap cars from the 1970s up until the early 2000s. I’m not going to deny for a second that the 1980s were a terrible decade for the luxury brand and its prestige, but the 1990s marked a turnaround for Cadillac, with a sharply styled model range brimming with fresh technology. No Cadillac better exemplifies the changing fortunes of the General’s flagship range than the 1992 Seville.
Even disregarding what lay underneath, the new Seville was a huge change from its predecessor. Gone was the frumpy, boxy, me-too styling of the 1986-91 Seville, replaced by a rakish look that emphasized its thirteen inches of additional length and two inches of extra width. With a longer hood and shorter deck, its proportions weren’t as inhibited by the constraints of front-wheel-drive packaging, even though the wheelbase only increased by three inches. The blocky interior was replaced by a handsome, more flowing design with real African Zebrano wood accents. The warm, relaxed atmosphere stood in contrast to the stark, Teutonic themes employed by much of the competition without going near crushed-velour, loose-pillow Brougham territory.
The STS continued as a full-fledged model in the Seville line-up, joined by a luxury-oriented standard model, renamed SLS (Seville Luxury Sedan) for 1994. The STS featured a firmer suspension, wider tires on 16-inch wheels, analog gauges and less exterior brightwork. The Seville was also further differentiated from its Eldorado sibling, with the latter riding on a 108-inch wheelbase and the former, a 112-inch. Although the Eldorado was also all-new for 1992, it more closely followed existing Cadillac design cues with its very vertical C-pillar; the Seville, by contrast, was a much more dramatic change. Eldorados listed at $32k, whereas Sevilles were priced in the $35-38k range.
Initial propulsion for the 1992 Seville was the carryover, transversely-mounted 4.9 V8 with 200hp and 275 lb-ft of torque, hooked to the 4T60-E four-speed automatic which was praised for its characteristic smoothness and quick responsive. This was only used a stopgap powertrain, but still managed a two-second improvement in the dash to sixty and was impressive enough to help the new car win Motor Trend’s Car of the Year and land on Car & Driver’s 10Best for 1992. Sales also rocketed up to 44,000 units, almost double the number of units moved in 1991. People were impressed: Cadillac was all too eager to quote critics in their advertisements, including a particularly impressive declaration from Automobile Magazine that the Seville had “the looks and performance to go with excellent handling and road holding… [and] is every bit as good as it looks.” The suspension architecture still featured front MacPherson struts and an independent rear suspension with a transverse leaf spring, but the structure was fifteen percent stiffer than the 1991 Seville’s, and handling was vastly improved.
It was 1993, though, that marked a complete turnaround for the Seville. The Northstar V8 introduced in the 1993 Allanté was also standard in the STS, and for 1994, the SLS as well. This double overhead cam, 32-valve powerhouse saw Seville’s power outputs shoot up to 270hp and 300 lb-ft (SLS) and 295hp, 290 lb-ft (STS); in the case of the STS, a 95 horsepower gain, although only 15 lb-ft more torque. Both had competitive power-to-weight ratios, with each of the STS’s ponies, now routed through the new 4T80-E automatic, propelling 12.9lbs. Also new for the STS was an unequal-length control arm rear suspension.
The STS was good for a 0-60 of around seven seconds – plenty of grunt for the time – and Cadillac engineers did a commendable job of working around the limitations of front-wheel-drive. Torque steer was minimal and Motor Trend’s review noted, “You can flatfoot the megapower Seville off the line with an arrow-straight trajectory.” Traction control was standard on the 1993 STS to help keep things from getting too hairy. A 1995 Car & Driver comparison against European and Japanese rivals praised the Seville’s gutsy performance, spacious and richly-appointed interior and sharp styling. They observed the Caddy had an extremely supple ride and great highway demeanor, but chided it for excessive lean in corners and noticeable understeer. However, they found the STS to be better-rounded than the BMW 540i despite its relative handling deficiencies, pointing out that “Touring” was not just a part of the model name and where the car truly excelled.
The price of entry to Seville was increased with the arrival of the Northstar; by 1994, the SLS listed at $40,900 and the STS, at $44,890. 1995 saw a few hundred dollars added to the STS list price, but it still undercut the Infiniti Q45t ($52,400), Lexus LS400 ($51,200), BMW 540i ($47,950) and Mercedes E420 ($52,500). The new Lincoln Continental, boasting a 4.6 Intech V8 with less power and torque (260hp, 260 lb-ft) was the only rival to undercut the STS, but did so with a blander interior and inferior dynamics. The Europeans were realizing, thanks to tougher competition, that they could no longer charge substantial premiums.
Unlike other GM models, the Seville wasn’t left to stagnate. The 1994 STS featured an available fully-independent, continuously variable, speed-sensitive suspension (CVRSS) with dampers that adjusted to the road surface every 15/100th of a second, as well as speed-sensitive power steering; CVRSS would become standard on the SLS, too, in 1997. 1995 saw both the SLS and STS gain 5 horsepower; the SLS now sat at 275hp, the STS at an even 300hp.
Front-wheel-drive has its limits, and Cadillac would never go higher than 300hp in a front-driver; the final 2003 Seville STS still had 300hp, and later DTS Platinum and Performance models only had 292hp (GM would only top these figures with the V8, 303hp, 320 ft-lb W-Bodies of the mid-2000s). Finally, this generation’s penultimate year saw an extensively revised interior with a more integrated console, as well as rain-sensing wipers and steering wheel audio controls. Even the final year saw worthwhile suspension tweaks, plus the addition of Cadillac’s new StabiliTrak system, 0.9 inches wider front brakes, French stitched leather and some NVH refinements. There was no annual cost-cutting with the Seville; the only negative change was the muting of the sonorous Northstar engine note.
Seville sales hit a high of 46,713 units in 1994, with a low point of 37,239 moved during its sophomore year. Sales consistently hovered in the high 30k, low 40k unit range; a darn sight better than its predecessor, which sat around 20k annual units, and better even than the Bustleback Seville of 1980-85. The Seville even outperformed the similarly-sized Lexus LS in annual sales.
I spotted this 1994-95 Cadillac Seville SLS right in the heart of Midtown Manhattan, and couldn’t stop drooling. Although they were never sold where I grew up, the Sevilles and Eldorados of the 1990s were the first Cadillacs I truly noticed. I’ve grown more fond of the Seville and less so of the Eldorado with time, and I find the Seville (and its familiar-looking 1998-2004 successor) absolutely beautiful to my eyes. These were the first Cadillacs to really cement my Cadillac fascination, and I find it particularly irritating that critics virtually disavow their existence.
The 1992-97 Seville proved GM could take on the Europeans, and be competitive even without following the traditional rear-wheel-drive formula. Perhaps inferior reliability to its Japanese rivals has made critics amnesiac to the Seville’s virtues. Northstar engines may have eaten headgaskets and the CVRSS may have been flaky and complex, but these issues aside, the 92-97 Seville wasn’t just a pretty face. It was a contender.
Related: 1975-1979 Seville CC 1980-1985 Seville CC 1986-1991 Seville CC
I’m surprised that I didn’t comment on this article before as I was driving one when the article came out. 1995 SLS, 4.6. Had CVRSS and some other little things that filtered down from the STS of years before. Mine was white with saddle interior, which I didn’t like at first, but which grew on me. It had very comfortable seats and the front ones had plenty of adjustments. The rear seat was nicely shaped but short on legroom. The Bose stereo had no such branding in the car, but was described as such sounded very good and had good reception on the radio, but proprietary hardware made swapouts impossible. It was quick and composed on the road, though handling wasn’t quite sports car. The ABS disc brakes were very good, and 225/60R16 is a good compromise between tight handling and real road use. It was a very nice car to drive that ultimately troubled its way out of existence, finally thanks to leaking freeze plugs (see video link). I drove it from about 68,000 to 158,000 in about 5 years. It really felt mighty to drive, and gave you a lot of confidence to be able to accelerate like that. It throbbed off thoroughbred sounds while doing so, adding to the fun. Though it was a great car for traffic as well as travel, and I don’t want to diminish that, I’ll go over some problems. Mine would get SES light at some point most trips due to torque converter clutch slippage in low gears. There was a revised chip for it, but that was NLA by the time I had the car, so I just had to deal with it. The Northstar was physically large and left little room to work around it. I changed an alternator on that car. That sucked, but at least mine didn’t have the water cooled alternator. Coil packs were in a hot area and failed periodically. Ditto for the interior blower motor, and changing it leaves the car’s air path weakened and more prone to leak.
My dad recently bought a 97 STS, he has always wanted a Cadillac and he finally made the jump. While he was very happy with it at first, it soon begun to show some typical Northstar problems. It’s very comfortable and a the 300hp v8 makes it a hoot to drive. However it can’t go on the highway due to a overheating issue. He has had work done to it to fix the issue but nothing has worked, and is planning on running it to the ground. He is now looking at 70’s Lincoln coupes as he is tired of buying litres of coolant every week. It’s a shame Cadillac didn’t have Northstar all right from the beginning, it’s such a nice car.
I didn’t know that they were sold in Australia. From what I understand, the head bolt issue is supposed to be gone with the 2001 regular fuel update to the engines. They switched to thicker head bolts with coarser threads.
They weren’t. But we have quite a few JDM versions that have ended up here.
And likewise quite a number of JDM Sevilles arrived across the ditch in NZ too.
There’s a lot of armchair quarterbacks in this thread from 2014. Lots of grumpy opinions from some readers who admittedly have never even driven a Northstar, much less owned one.
I own a ’97 Deville with a Northstar, and a ’98 Continental with the Intech V8.
The engines are an interesting comparison, both all aluminum 4.6 32 valve DOHC V8’s.
The performance for both is excellent, and virtually identical. But the Intech is much more reliable with no HG or oil – leak issues. And it’s easier to service because the major components are easier to reach and/or can be fixed with conventional tools. If Ford can make a completely reliable engine of this type, why couldn’t GM?
Of course the Continental and Seville are more comparable, my Deville is larger and less sporty than the Continental. It was a more expensive car and it shows, the interior is more expensive and luxurious and the factory paint is better. When it runs, its really nice, and much much better made than previous Cadillacs.
Currently my Deville is laid- up with the usual Northstar head bolt and oil leak issues, at 202,000 km. ( I drove it 110,000 of those km. ) I have a Time-Sert kit that I plan to install, but I have 14 other cars and a full time job so I’m not sure when I have the time. My machinist friend and I think we can do the Timeserts without pulling the engine. We think a jig and a 90 degree drill will work on the rear headbolts. We’ll see.
BTW my buddy owns a ’92 Eldorado (with the Seville – style front end and chassis) and a ’85 FWD Fleetwood. He’s found out firsthand the 4.9 liter pushrod Cadillac engines are no better than the Northstar. Their problems are a bit different but blown HG’s and cracked heads are common.
This may sound silly but is there enough meat on the block to go the next size up on headbolts. For example if the current bolts are 7\16″ can you go to 1\2″? If you want coarser threads anyway why not start with fresh metal instead of the timesert.
I remember seeing one on our way back from somewhere in the Scottish countryside and being inordinately excited at seeing an STS in the UK. That excitement was tempered by the fact that the driver never got over 25mph on any of the roads and was slowing down to 12mph on the tighter corners. I got a lot of time to admire the clean lines of the car 😂
Shame ’bout the Northstar.
I’d driven a couple of these back in the day. Almost bought one off a used car lot about a dozen years ago. But thankfully I hesitated, I was just learning about the problems old Northstars were having.
There’s been some controversy over Cadillac prices these past few years. But let’s take the starting price of the 1994 SLS entry-level model – $40,900 – and run that through ye olde inflation calculator…
$69,586.85.
The 2019 CTS starts at $46,995.
The 2019 XTS base starts at $46,895. Platinum AWD, $68,395.
Even the CT6 base is $54,095.
Obviously we don’t have ATP to compare, nor did I look up what comparable Mercs and Bimmers go for to complete the comparison, but it seems to be, at least judging by my limited POV, that the current equivalents to our subject car are screaming bargains.
Regarding the Northstar and the Seville’s reputation, Marlon Brando in the movie “On the Waterfront” says it all. “I could have been a contender….”
Unfortunately the Northstar was just an additional engine nail in the coffin of Cadillac’s reputation.
I first saw one of these on the road in ’92. A black one shiny as new water. I was stunned at how good looking it was. I finally understood the Cadillac-as-desirable-object thing. I never liked the looks of most of them, except for the bustleback because of a particularly nice Hot Wheels I had as a kid. I guess the one to have would have been with the 4.9L as it seems to have a good reputation, if only adequate power. The Northstar was typical GM cost-cutting themselves in the throat. The 4.9L seems to have almost accidentally been something GM did right. As longevity goes, I still see them in Northwest Indiana having survived the salt tsunamis, still doing their thing and looking good doing it. Parts yards are all full of the Northstar ones. I once took the entire plastic engine cover from one and attached it cheesily to my old Taurus before going for an oil change. Covered the entire motor. Got some laughs from the techs, who told me it wouldn’t be an upgrade as Northstars were junk. A work friend had a ’97 which was a good car for him until it nickled and dimed him to death. Many many many many many nickels and dimes. Ironically his Northstar was always reliable…
I’m kind of fascinated to read all the plaudits and praise for the design and styling of these cars. I prefer 4-doors, and I prefer box-on-wheels designs over jellybean or ovoid or dinosaur-turd or spaceship or extraterrestrial-insect, so by those measures this car should appeal to me, but it always struck me as a yawner. I can see how it was a big leap by comparison to the previous (’91) model, but that’s setting the bar low. Aw well, I’m on ice way too thin to be looking askance too hard at others’ automotive tastes.
This might open a can of rabid worms that have teeth and claws and live in toilet bowls, but I wonder if Dex-Cool (a/k/a Death-Cool) might have contributed to the problems and failures in the Northstar engines.
Dan, you are funny and your comments are always fun to read. Per the love of the Caddy’s looks, I lack the vocabulary to describe it precisely, but it’s like harmony. The highs and the lows balance out in a song. Colors in a painting. I just know it when I see it and this car has it. Plus it’s a big car that goes vroom-vroom and s**t.
Thanks kindly for the compliments!
I don’t reckon this Cad is ugly—its design is coherent and it looks fine, but not substantially more so than a Plymouth Acclaim. Don’t get me wrong; I like Plymouth Acclaims, but.
Add to that the costly and frequent repairs and the dumb failures. The running gear breakdowns are already well bitched-about, but they weren’t the extent of it. GM wrote too many bad cheques with the equipment on this car. CHMSL usually means Centre High Mount Stop Lamp, i.e., 3rd brake light, but in this car’s case it apparently means Can’t Hardly Make Shit Last. For just one example.
Also, I drove my grandmother’s last car, a ’95 DeVille, enough that I doubt if I will ever be convinced a transverse V8 with FWD is a defensible idea.
Found a Motorweek review of a 1998 STS Seville.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D52JyACtUe3I&ved=2ahUKEwjhvc3i8OHdAhXVLH0KHXImAdYQtwIwAHoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2iCVQEISNyWgdDDIOdSX9S
And a 1992 STS Seville Motor week test
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D69EValVi-EA&ved=2ahUKEwizxrnD8-HdAhXPITQIHSlFBy4QtwIwAHoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3OZdJTjdmmWF2jUpuZZymk
Lincoln Mark VII … mega presence and class even today. Liked these Seville models of course, and they look proper today as well. Better looking than anything Caddy does today. And while new Continental is beautiful, the 92 Mark VII still demands more respect outside anyway.
The deadliest sin was that it took GM so many years to fix the head bolt problem. They should have sent out free coolant replacement coupons to the early buyers. Regular changes reduces the likelihood of gasket damage.
Styling looked a great deal like the Ferrari Pinin concept car, introduced twelve years earlier, in 1980. 1992 Seville, doesn’t seem so original, after viewing the Pinin. Including the eggcrate grille.
The Northstars after 1999 made their horsepower on regular 87 octane gas instead of premium. Head gasket problems are all but gone for 2004+ engines. I’ve had them in two cars since 2007 and can’t remember any engine/transaxle problems. The Northstar’s rotten reputation made them great buys as used cars.
The only thing I don’t love about this generation Seville is the huge and rubbery airbag cover, which was typical of the period. You could even get cloth seats on the SLS.
A decade since I last commented on this car, I still think the styling holds up. If Cadillac had introduced this in 1986 is the third gen Seville, (and their quality reputation hadn’t gone south) they’d probably have had quite a hit on their hands.
I may be the only one, but I sort of see the second gen bustle back Seville in this car, where it was absent from the 1986 third gen.
What if, right?
These were lovely cars, but the rear seat cushion was too low for comfort and the engines were a matter of picking your poison. Then there was the little matter of the LS400 not having 275-foot pounds of torque steer or any quality issues whatsoever.
I remember being surprised at the small trunk.
At a local supermarket where I often shop, a Cadillac Seville of this generation is always parked in the same spot. I figured that it belongs to an employee who arrives for work early, before the store opens.
One day I saw him sitting in the Cadillac, during his break. I struck up a conversation with him about his car. It is a 1993 Seville SLS, and he credits his favorable experience and its longevity to its “stopgap” powertrain…it’s pre-Northstar.
He also noticed the 1990s car I was driving, my 1995 Dodge Intrepid. Both stand out with their sleek, stylish lines from the boxy, lookalike SUVs and CUVs around them.