@@G0ZERIAN you must be smoking the good stuff if you’re still seeing old Acuras on the road. They wouldn’t last for more than a few years. As I said, they’re junk
@@eddienoel2584 hope one day you get to travel away from whatever shit hole you must live in. The 80s and 90s Acuras have the same longevity as the Honda counter parts. Not opinion. Objective fact. You'll get to see that in the real world, people marry outside of their family tree, and that 80s and 90s GM products were shit, and that Honda and Toyota products had the US companies by the balls. Apples to apples here. Same Era Acuras to same era GM products. Hands down, quality, longevity, and reliability went to Honda/Acura.
I love my 89 Cadillac. Have had it for 16 years now, and given the age I don't know how I have never had any problems with it. It just starts and rides like a dream.
Seville came out in 1976 as you can see it featured in the movie "Car Wash" that came out the same year. It was one of the most elegant designs they ever made, so naturally they followed it up with the hideous humpback '81 monstrosity and this '89 generic box.
Caddy engineer #1: Well, the dash and interior is done. Engineer #2: You forgot the damned radio. #1: Oh, here is this leftover from an '85 Bonneville. Have Slappy cut a hole right about there and shove it in. Done!
As someone who's always appreciated the more traditional, large Cadillac boats...I have to admit, these 80s smaller FWD cars are starting to grow on me.
Front wheel drive is the best option for all around driving, in all areas of the country. If u want a sports car, this isnt it. But this car wouldn't get stuck in snow🤨
@@E34Benzin no 1911beauty is right. For just plain driving fwd is the best. It’s cheaper to make, cost less in fuel to run and does better in snow and wet weather.
@@1911beauty RWD is OK with limited slip. You'd think with how much cars cost now they'd come standard with it but they're always cheaper out on actual drivers features like that
@Donald Trump is Ghetto Trash I guarantee this thing ran like shit after 1 year of ownership. For driving enjoyment it was probably okay but nothing special. To me the next generation STS is when Cadillac stepped up their game. I still like the look of that one.
@Donald Trump is Ghetto Trash Well okay, not major issues after one year, but I'll bet it began having minor stuff like electrical problems that Toyotas and Hondas didn't have, for example. Part of the trouble of these luxury cars from back then is that they had way more stuff to go wrong (also the case today, really, but worse then because electronics in general weren't great).
@Donald Trump is Ghetto Trash The Cadillac HT engine (particularly the 4.1 and 4.5L variants weren't known for being exceptionally reliable. This was still Roger Smith's GM at the time.
Can you guys upload the Cadillac DeVille Touring Coupe? This STS is a classic example of how GM half assed everything they did. The STS should have had the 200hp Allante V8 and a much better handling package.
NO they shouldn't have, absolutely opposite - they should've been proud that they were soft luxurious riding cruisers and capitalized on that instead of trying to be something they were never intended to be - a sports car. A lesson they STILL haven't figured out, and unfortunately they're are NO American luxury highway cruisers like the Cadillacs of old.
There never was a DeVille Touring Coupe! A Touring Sedan, yes! Cadillac should not have been mostly FWD! Only the Cimarron was OK to be FWD! That's true even today!!!!
Cadillac actually built and sold 1500 of these STS models in 1988 to favorite customers. They were registered as 1988 models. My mom bought one, and loved it. She had it up until her death in 2020. It was short on leg room, but was fun to drive, and had one of the best interiors of any American made car.
The speedometer stopped reading after 85mph? Yikes lol. I know alot of cars in that era had 85mph speedometers, but I didn't know the digital ones actually stopped at 85mph lol
People crap all over this, but for me this is what I remember of caddys growing up. I quite like it, and remember riding in my uncle’s and feeling like I was floating on a cloud.
These cars were small, but they had a very substantial feel. The interiors were really sumptuous to be in. Plush seats, deep pile carpet, elegant door chimes and warnings. They reeked of luxury. The dash design is absolutely dreadful though. I'm not talking about the aesthetics, but the ergonomics. Apparently someone who's never driven a car and operated controls designed that dash. What a mess. With that said, I'd still much rather own one of these little FWD Cadillacs from back in the day than a present day Cadillac. They have hard seats. They ride hard. The interiors don't look particularly luxurious or distinctive to me for the money. I'd rather have a current Lincoln Continental over anything Cadillac these days.
In today's money that 89 STS would cost about $73.5k. Today you can get a CTS V-Sport Premium which is more competitive with it's primary competition in every way. I do think both the STS and CTS V-Sport are overpriced for what you get. The MB AMG E-Class, and BMW M550i AWD can both be had for about the same price.
@@palebeachbum I think they artificially inflate MSRP's so that when the inevitable incentives hit, they can still make a decent profit. This is very common in the light truck market as well. Then again, GM has so much in the way of healthcare and retirement liabilities, they probably do need to make a decent profit on everything they sell.
These Retro Review videos would really benefit from better-quality deinterlacing, such as Yadif or QTGMC. That would get rid of the "jaggies" seen on diagonal lines and provide a much clearer, sharper image.
@Paul Lunsford uh the last model year of the Seville was 05 only about 100 models were sold that year have loved Cadillacs since I was a young girl my grandmother had a used 79 Coupe Deville
I actually think the styling on this car is quite good, and that's a good stopping distance from 60 even by today's standards. GM may have missed the mark in a few other areas of this Seville, but it was a step in the right direction for Cadillac in my opinion.
While not a bad looking car, the 1986 downsizing wasn't smart. Sales tanked and did marginally better through 1991. The problem is that the car looked too similar to smaller offerings from Oldsmobile, Buick and Pontiac while demanding a price premium. Consumers couldn't accept the concept of a Seville essentially looking like a bloated Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais.
@@texan903 Which is fair do's when ye think about it. GM did the whole component/platform sharing even in the 60s prob further back than that but atleast each marque had its own unique qualities & styling moreso than the 80s. Mind you, back in the 10s & 20s nearly all cars looked broadly similar too although that was more to do with thier early engineering limits but its abit unfair to blame GM for thier 80s cookie cutting strategy, though that was what they were and they were being lazy and even more penny pinching. Real pr9b was too many d8visions under one roof, bit like what happened to us with British Leyland 😃.
The upright notchback styling was quite common in the USA back in the 80s, the opposite to the fastback design used by everyone else today. Also FWD v8 wtf gm
@@PrydeWater901 No, it worked out quite well. Those 3 speed transmission they used were bulletproof. They only switched to the side-mounted format because the industry was going in that direction.
This car actually still looks decent by 80s standards. The FWD V8 was a slam dunk, you have to remember that rough running V6s were commonplace for many years and a smooth V8 added alot of value even at only 155hp
Everyone complaining about the dash design fails to realize that dashboards these days are a billion times worse than anything that was 'annoying' or 'out of reach' back in the day. Theres a button on a touch screen for everything. And it takes up most of your vision. With that in mind, ill happily take a dash like this.
It would have been nice if the controls controls weren't so low and so far away from the driver's eyes, a very poor design on my opinion. But I'm nitpicking here, as I do like these small 80's Cadillacs, especially the Allante. Well, I guess the Allante wasn't small...
Key is the power output is absolutely pathetic and torque not great either. Ive had the Merc 260e they compared it too and in a bigger car with a 2.6L 6cyl its miles faster than this thing too.
As a tech in the mid 90s, the biggest problem we saw wasn't the leaky engine, wasn't the electronic controls on the dash.. It was the electronic suspension system. There were 2 versions. 1 was a std touring suspension with traditional frt struts but rear air struts. The other was a performance handling package that had electronic variable struts. When those failed... holy smokes, the cost. On the std 1, the rear struts were prone to leak and once again, holy smokes the cost!
The only thing this car did was handle ok...I almost put one in a ditch around a hairpin turn should have been doing 15 20 mph I hit it at 40 and quickly found its limits..I'm glad even at that age I knew to turn back in and I saved it went off the road a little bit leaving behind a nice rut but I didn't flip it or crash so it wasn't a total fail..
This was finally the car the Seville should've been in 1980, not a total Euro clone but with less Brougham froufrou and more performance-mindedness than other Caddys so as to continue appealing to a different customer than the DeVille and Fleetwood.
Drive a CTS-V after an M5 or a ATS-V after an M3 and tell me what the better handling car is. I own an M2 Competition by the way, so not Cadillac fanboying at all but judged just on handling and the newer Cadillac’s are superior to comparable BMW’s
jameswillard1 Don’t get me wrong, I like Cadillac, it’s just that for the last 30 years or so they’ve been playing catch up with Germany and Japan. Even if that is the case, I would much rather buy an M3 than an ATS-V, which is getting discontinued anyways
A lot of reviewers preferred the handling on Cadillac CTS’s and ATS’s over German competitors. When Motor Trend tested the C63 M3 and ATS-V, the Cadillac beat the M3
I was a serial BMW owner but I bought a CTS-V wagon because I needed the room for my 3 German Shepherds. Had more fun and less trouble with that car than any BMW. Other than tires and brakes it was almost trouble free for 159 K miles.
155hp is typical for American V8s in the 80s'. That thing a decent amount of torque. It is a throttle body injected fuel system, after all. The port injected version of this engine had 200hp and about 270ft/lb of torque. Not mind blowing now, but good for the times.
It actually launched hard since good torque was available right off idle and built strongly up until about 2500 rpm it would feel as fast as more powerful V8 cars of its time, but after 2500rpm it just wheezed with power falling flat and just a bunch of noise, hence that is why the hp figure is so low. The awful 4 speed autos of this era also made things even worse since they had poor gearing and long shift times.
My brand-new '87 Camaro IROC (hi performance Camaro) came standard with a 145hp 5.0 V8. Mustang was already putting out 225hp with same size V8/ keeping up with the competition LoL
It didn't look horrible on the outside, though unmistakably generic GM affair, but that interior was hideous even then and doing a FWD V8 should be punishable by life-long hard labor in a goulag.
These first STS' are great looking cars, and in the revised later year/s, with the 4.9 v8, they are pretty great I only wish there were more of them around so I could find and buy a nice, clean one!
I always thought the Allante was, and still is, a very underrated car. Fortunately, an exceptionally nice one is affordable for most people and most have low miles.
Sales were so poor on the Seville, beginning in 1986 that Cadillac should've released the 1992 model in '89, new for '90. As it was, they were two years late, giving imports from Japan a clear advantage.
This has to be one Cadillac's lamest attempts to appear “german”. This guys have been chasing the euro luxo cars since the early 80’s and failed almost every single time (except the ATS). Today Lincoln is doing WAY better embracing the traditional american luxo boat market. Shame on GM.
What GM got wrong was that most if not all European FWD automobiles had engines of less than 2 litres so as not to induce torque steer!! What where they thinking of putting a whopping great 3.8 litre v6 driving the front wheels
Design was really good for the time but the mistake by management was to compete with Europeans at all. If they stuck to body on frame RWD V8 cars instead of abandoning them one by one they would have done well in that area. Toyota’s intro of the LS400 for not that much more money must have caused major buyers’ remorse for STS owners.
Toyota introduced a luxury car and it was instantly a legitimate competitor to the Germans. The LS actually influenced the luxury car market. 30 years later and Cadillac is still reinventing itself in its effort to compete with the now established brands. This isn't about talent but will. Toyota had the will to do what it takes to rival the Germans. Cadillac seems to want to compete but not willing to do what it takes.
@@guse1219 Cadillac should've been working to perfect a winning formula they had used for years. All they had to do was combine modern styling with solid handling, dependability, comfort, and efficiency. Instead they spent so much time trying to be something they weren't (imports) and lost their way in the process.
@@travelseatsyellowlab GM simply can't spend the money nor effort. They have shareholders to answer to, which want profits right now. GM has always played the short game and look at their cars now. Toyota played the long game and that's why they are at the top. It's not like these companies don't know how to make an excellent car. Some just choose not to.
Their Inspiration was "European Cars that Europe would never make because they would be Garbage".. It's a rare market but GM hit it right on the head!!
@@alexander1485 Infiniti hardly made a dent in Cadillac sales, their (Infiniti) initial advertising campaign was quite weak and they've never really recovered.
My friend lived with his grandma who had one she bought new, don't know the year but this body style, we were young 16-23 and all beat the crap outta this car and it just never quit running.
I miss these cars from GM. This "little limo" look they had across the board was classy. What I find amazing and amusing is that my current car only has a 2.0 turbo four banger under the hood with 245hp....half the cylinders and less than half the displacement but yet almost 100 more hp and gets 35mpg.
The Seville that came after this was stunning. This one just looks like any other cookie-cutter GM car at the time. The European cars they were trying to rival had a more personable quality to them.
Personally I like to look, and I love the wood trim. But 150 hearse power from a 4.5 V8?! C’mon how disappointed would you be after shelling out the thick end of 35k.
They should've never made the SeVille FWD. worst mistake and it shared platform with other GM sedans. How'd thet expect to compete?? Weird. Interior design is ugly but very luxurious i give it that. Styling was clean but looks to GM-80s-generic looking. This car was such a flop. The 92 SVille that replaced this car was wayyyyyyy better lol
Cadillac really tried hard, but didn't exactly hit out out of the park with this one. The only Cadillac I'd really want to have is the old school Fleetwood Brougham / d'Elegance. If it came down to the STS and the Mercedes 260E, I'd take the 260E. Back then, Mercedes still made a good solid, over-engineered car that just looked more classy.
Ugly and cheap. The plastics were hard and brittle even by the standards of the day, and the whole design looks as if six different committees were involved but never spoke to each other. Why does the driver's seat need all of those cheap toggle-switch buttons? If GM was truly trying to go after import BMW and MB buyers with this car, one look at that dashboard/cabin and it would have sent people running out of the dealership. This car, like so many previous Cadillacs, missed the mark - which is too bad, because dynamically this car did have something to offer. It was much better made than previous Caddys and the V8 sounds great even if it is a little breathless on hard acceleration.
Sad to watch the degeneration of a once luxurious make slide down the slippery slope of "performance sedan" design. Luxury should be the pinnacle of one design, performance that of another. Trying to mix them together has ruined both.
In 1992 Cadillacs were ruined. The 4.6 and eventually the 4.8 Northstars were junk. The LW2 4.5 and the 4.9 are the only real Cadillac engines of the 80s and 90s. Unless you got a Fleetwood, then the LT1 350 was the cat's meow.
This was about 3 years after Cadillac basically abandoned there loyal customers with horrible customer service and front wheel drive garbage that nobody was asking for! Every person who bought one of these within 3 years went to Lexus,Infiniti,BMW,Mercedes and never came back...
Don't look at horsepower numbers only. These cars had a good amount of torque. Have you driven one? If you have you wouldn't complain. The 4.5 and later 4.9 were Cadillacs best engines. They are bullet proof.
Kenneth lol. Torque is a function of horsepower and can be multiplied with gearing. These engines from that generation started off with a displacement of 4.1 liters. I had an 86 Eldorado and while a nice car couldn’t get out of its own way.(130 hp) These engines had very small valves and a very restrictive exhaust manifold. All done for efficient low RPM operation. Going to port injection and variable valve timing would dramatically help pushrod engines in the future.(The LS series engines)
@@curtisssmith5204 You are very knowledgeable from what you said. I agree the 4.1 wasn't the most powerful but I owned a 1988 Cadillac Eldorado with the same 4.5 that was featured in this video and for such a heavy car, it would pull and pull and pull. Plenty of power in my opinion.
This was actually a nice nice car, nice size also. The Continental that was out during this time mentioned, that it's cheaper, was a piece of junk and that basically was per my local Lincoln Mercury dealership
Cadillac brought you POS engines like the 4,6,8, this crappy 4.5 engine and the NorthStar. With a line up like this through the years how is it they are still around?
The 4.6.8 was just a detuned old 472 which is a great engine . The problem was the weak computers of the time. Also the 4.5 was a big improvement over the earlier 4.1in both reliability and performance
God, even 'dechromed' this thing looks like a dishwasher in drag. You can even see the part lines in the body work with how tacked on the bumpers look.
I'm 38 and was obsessed with cars since I was a child. I can't remember the last time I saw one of these cars...the car looked like it was falling apart over bumps. Now I understand why.
Авто/Мото
Want to help keep our weekly Retro Reviews alive? DONATE NOW: mptevents.regfox.com/motorweek
1989 Cadillac STS, the official car of “hi sweetheart, how much for a blow?”
The 1979 was the official car of "how much for SOME blow?"
TornadoTJ either one sounds great to me
@@phantom0456 and a half buttoned shirt
I literally laughed out loud, good job bro
Fitting, then, that STS sounds more like a disease than a car.
By modern day standards to have a 155 HP 4,5L V8 is like having a gigantic smartphone without data plan
Or with a 4GB RAM!
not really
This is the STS time forgot. 1993 model was what got them on the market watch.
4.5L V8 that **almost** can run with an Acura Legend? Keep in mind in that year, the Legend was a 2.7L 161 hp V6
Acura is junk
@@eddienoel2584 lol...yet still on the road while typical 80s GM trash rusted to dust by the year 2000.
@@G0ZERIAN you must be smoking the good stuff if you’re still seeing old Acuras on the road. They wouldn’t last for more than a few years. As I said, they’re junk
@@eddienoel2584 hope one day you get to travel away from whatever shit hole you must live in. The 80s and 90s Acuras have the same longevity as the Honda counter parts. Not opinion. Objective fact. You'll get to see that in the real world, people marry outside of their family tree, and that 80s and 90s GM products were shit, and that Honda and Toyota products had the US companies by the balls. Apples to apples here. Same Era Acuras to same era GM products. Hands down, quality, longevity, and reliability went to Honda/Acura.
@@eddienoel2584 and I paraphrased something right out of the video. I didn't make that up. John said it himself in the video.
I love my 89 Cadillac. Have had it for 16 years now, and given the age I don't know how I have never had any problems with it. It just starts and rides like a dream.
Even G.M. does a LITTLE right!
You still have it?
Is it still running?
You clearly got a lemon. GM doesn't make cars that last half the time you've had yours.
Cadillac STS 1989, i love this car. Aithentic Cadillac Style
I'll take That first 78 seville they showed instead
Without looking it up I believe the Nova based, Oldsmobile powered Seville came out in 1976.
Seville came out in 1976 as you can see it featured in the movie "Car Wash" that came out the same year. It was one of the most elegant designs they ever made, so naturally they followed it up with the hideous humpback '81 monstrosity and this '89 generic box.
It’s such a big difference literally lol. Idk how they went from such a big Seville to this smaller version of it.
@@kingjay239 easy...everything went smaller then. Case in point, look the Monte Carlo from 1977 to 1978😉
GM merely put a new body on a Nova chassis. No one could use the corporate parts bin better than vintage GM.
What European machine did they get their “inspiration” from. A refrigerator?
Bosch refrigerator? 😂
LOL
It sorta looks like Volvo from far...
Exactly lol
"European" LOL. Every 67 year old Greasrball around Atlantic City and Philly had one of these in his garage.
The interior designer only had a t-square
They all did then.
The interior of these cars was dated as soon as it came out. The rest of the car looks decent though by 80s standards
Never drop acid and get in one of these as you will never find your way out of the squares.
Or no skills at all
Lol they misplaced their French curve
*We're getting closer.. come on with that treasure trove of 90's GM gold you guys are sitting on.*
If they didn't rust away before the testing was over. **shrug**
This piece of Shit?
@@thomasdouglas2006 They are an icon... Ahead of their time
@@G0ZERIAN Sounds like a Northern problem.
@@kensmechanicalaffair I'm in southwest, and they still rust away to nothing like Thanos snapped them out of existence 🤷🏻♂️....
that dashboard makes farm equipment's interior look sleek
But not pick ups or jeeps
Caddy engineer #1: Well, the dash and interior is done. Engineer #2: You forgot the damned radio. #1: Oh, here is this leftover from an '85 Bonneville. Have Slappy cut a hole right about there and shove it in. Done!
@@bruschmidt9943 LEDs suck.
@@bruschmidt9943 name another brand equivalent to chevy that doesnt use a mix of incandescent and led lights.
you were a sperm swimming in the void when the 1989 Cadillac STS was being driven by pimps n G's
As someone who's always appreciated the more traditional, large Cadillac boats...I have to admit, these 80s smaller FWD cars are starting to grow on me.
Yes, it is growing on me too like a wart on my nose.. : ))
These are among the worst vehicles ever build by GM.
You're 30 years late.
I will take a mid 70s Seville over this any day......
@@fastdude2002 You wouldn't if you drive one with the venerable 4.9! This was a quick nice riding, handling car.
This is when GM was obsessed with FWD
Front wheel drive is the best option for all around driving, in all areas of the country. If u want a sports car, this isnt it. But this car wouldn't get stuck in snow🤨
@@1911beauty No, it isn't. FWD suits better a big luxury sedan.
@@E34Benzin no 1911beauty is right. For just plain driving fwd is the best. It’s cheaper to make, cost less in fuel to run and does better in snow and wet weather.
And Chrysler and Ford were NOT?
@@1911beauty
RWD is OK with limited slip. You'd think with how much cars cost now they'd come standard with it but they're always cheaper out on actual drivers features like that
I love Retro Reviews but have to admit this car was basically a piece of crap. Still fun to watch though.
Well it was made by gm....
@Donald Trump is Ghetto Trash I guarantee this thing ran like shit after 1 year of ownership. For driving enjoyment it was probably okay but nothing special. To me the next generation STS is when Cadillac stepped up their game. I still like the look of that one.
@Donald Trump is Ghetto Trash Well okay, not major issues after one year, but I'll bet it began having minor stuff like electrical problems that Toyotas and Hondas didn't have, for example. Part of the trouble of these luxury cars from back then is that they had way more stuff to go wrong (also the case today, really, but worse then because electronics in general weren't great).
@Donald Trump is Ghetto Trash The Cadillac HT engine (particularly the 4.1 and 4.5L variants weren't known for being exceptionally reliable. This was still Roger Smith's GM at the time.
Still rode like a cloud on the highway.
Can you guys upload the Cadillac DeVille Touring Coupe?
This STS is a classic example of how GM half assed everything they did. The STS should have had the 200hp Allante V8 and a much better handling package.
That whole lineup is an example of how GM half-assed everything. No Cadillac should've ever been FWD.
Better handling package? RWD.
@@BilliamCurt Personally would accept awd at the very least. The fact that they are fwd already ruined their long term value.
@@BilliamCurt Go back to the 1967 Cadillac Eldorado and tell them your opinion on FWD...
NO they shouldn't have, absolutely opposite - they should've been proud that they were soft luxurious riding cruisers and capitalized on that instead of trying to be something they were never intended to be - a sports car. A lesson they STILL haven't figured out, and unfortunately they're are NO American luxury highway cruisers like the Cadillacs of old.
There never was a DeVille Touring Coupe! A Touring Sedan, yes! Cadillac should not have been mostly FWD! Only the Cimarron was OK to be FWD! That's true even today!!!!
Cadillac actually built and sold 1500 of these STS models in 1988 to favorite customers. They were registered as 1988 models. My mom bought one, and loved it. She had it up until her death in 2020. It was short on leg room, but was fun to drive, and had one of the best interiors of any American made car.
Love the design of these mid to late 80s GM cars.
Actually, it wasn't a bad-looking car. The upright backlight was distinctive, practical and gave the car a kind of "formal" look.
The speedometer stopped reading after 85mph? Yikes lol. I know alot of cars in that era had 85mph speedometers, but I didn't know the digital ones actually stopped at 85mph lol
The best part is that most of those digital dashes still had the hundreds digit for kilometres, but it went unused in US mode.
I think it was federally mandated at the time.
@@palebeachbum Earlier in the '80s but that had been repealed by '89.
@@nlpnt Are you sure? My 1990 Ford Ranger, which was new for 1989, had an 85mph speedo.
I used to own an 88’ Eldorado and once you hit 85 mph. it just began to blink on and off.
Always loved the exterior look of this car especially in white
I'm genuinely interested in how Lexus got 255 hp out of a 4.0 V8 the same year, and Cadillac got 155hp out of a 4.5 V8?
Donald Trump is Ghetto Trash I’m liking your comments simply because of your user name 😂🤣
@@jameswillard1 A Trump hater with a simplistic mind, how rare.
Alex Cintas a Trump supporter that can actually spell, how rare 👍🏻
@@jameswillard1 I'm not the easily influenced simpleton going off a screen name, and I don't speak in emojis.
jameswillard1 Trump 2020. Making LibFuck Snowflakes like James Cry Again 😭
People crap all over this, but for me this is what I remember of caddys growing up. I quite like it, and remember riding in my uncle’s and feeling like I was floating on a cloud.
DDM7406 my uncle had one of these too. Blue with blue leather interior
My 1973 Eldo Convertible had more of the cloud feeling than the STS cars.
My dad had a white ‘86 SeVille and used to drive me to school with it in the early 2000’s.
These cars were small, but they had a very substantial feel. The interiors were really sumptuous to be in. Plush seats, deep pile carpet, elegant door chimes and warnings. They reeked of luxury. The dash design is absolutely dreadful though. I'm not talking about the aesthetics, but the ergonomics. Apparently someone who's never driven a car and operated controls designed that dash. What a mess. With that said, I'd still much rather own one of these little FWD Cadillacs from back in the day than a present day Cadillac. They have hard seats. They ride hard. The interiors don't look particularly luxurious or distinctive to me for the money. I'd rather have a current Lincoln Continental over anything Cadillac these days.
In today's money that 89 STS would cost about $73.5k. Today you can get a CTS V-Sport Premium which is more competitive with it's primary competition in every way. I do think both the STS and CTS V-Sport are overpriced for what you get. The MB AMG E-Class, and BMW M550i AWD can both be had for about the same price.
@@FoDaddy When I was car shopping back in 2018, I noticed the MSRPs on GMs seemed ridiculously high compared to others.
@@palebeachbum I think they artificially inflate MSRP's so that when the inevitable incentives hit, they can still make a decent profit. This is very common in the light truck market as well. Then again, GM has so much in the way of healthcare and retirement liabilities, they probably do need to make a decent profit on everything they sell.
"These cars were small..." That thing is 5,20m long!! The same length as a long wheelbase Mercedes S Class W140.
Americans 😎
@@E34Benzin the 89 STS was significantly smaller than any Cadillac before it. You should look up the dimensions of the 85 Fleetwood Brougham.
This is one of my favorite Cadillac body styles wish I could get my hands on one.
These Retro Review videos would really benefit from better-quality deinterlacing, such as Yadif or QTGMC. That would get rid of the "jaggies" seen on diagonal lines and provide a much clearer, sharper image.
I have a 91 eldorado. Its a pretty good car especially considering its 80s GM
@Paul Lunsford uh the last model year of the Seville was 05 only about 100 models were sold that year have loved Cadillacs since I was a young girl my grandmother had a used 79 Coupe Deville
"Sprinted to 60 in 8.9 seconds" that hurts to hear
It was more than 4 seconds faster than the heavier '85 Eldo Touring Coupe with the HT4100. And less likely to crap out expensively.
I actually think the styling on this car is quite good, and that's a good stopping distance from 60 even by today's standards. GM may have missed the mark in a few other areas of this Seville, but it was a step in the right direction for Cadillac in my opinion.
🤣
While not a bad looking car, the 1986 downsizing wasn't smart. Sales tanked and did marginally better through 1991. The problem is that the car looked too similar to smaller offerings from Oldsmobile, Buick and Pontiac while demanding a price premium. Consumers couldn't accept the concept of a Seville essentially looking like a bloated Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais.
@@texan903 Which is fair do's when ye think about it.
GM did the whole component/platform sharing even in the 60s prob further back than that but atleast each marque had its own unique qualities & styling moreso than the 80s.
Mind you, back in the 10s & 20s nearly all cars looked broadly similar too although that was more to do with thier early engineering limits but its abit unfair to blame GM for thier 80s cookie cutting strategy, though that was what they were and they were being lazy and even more penny pinching.
Real pr9b was too many d8visions under one roof, bit like what happened to us with British Leyland 😃.
These late 80s “mini” Caddies are to this day great looking cars.
Gone was the “boats”
I'd take a Cadillac from the 1950's or 60's anyway over anything Cadillac made in the 80's.
except the side profile...too reminiscent of a Saturn....the rear roofline and rear door sculpt flowing into the rear quarter is painful to look at.
4:59 John: NOT MANY WILL COMPLAIN, BUT COWS! LOL
😝🤣
That made me laugh more than it probably should have lol.
Vegans would have hated this car lol.
Did he just say a 1980's Cadillac had 'crisp handling'?
🤔
No, the Lincoln did.
Those ‘80s GM dashboards...aye yi yi.
🤣🤣🤣
The upright notchback styling was quite common in the USA back in the 80s, the opposite to the fastback design used by everyone else today. Also FWD v8 wtf gm
Well, to be fair, they've been doing the FWD V8 combo since the mid 60's.
Chris Troxler Didn’t work all that well then, either.
@@PrydeWater901
No, it worked out quite well. Those 3 speed transmission they used were bulletproof. They only switched to the side-mounted format because the industry was going in that direction.
This car actually still looks decent by 80s standards. The FWD V8 was a slam dunk, you have to remember that rough running V6s were commonplace for many years and a smooth V8 added alot of value even at only 155hp
@@Chris_Troxler damn right -worked so well they used them for rv's as well
Genuine 80's GM crap at its best
True
remember the fuckin Cadillac Cimarron? or it's grandchild from the early 2000s, the Cadillac Catera that was essentially a rebadged Opel sedan.
Everyone complaining about the dash design fails to realize that dashboards these days are a billion times worse than anything that was 'annoying' or 'out of reach' back in the day. Theres a button on a touch screen for everything. And it takes up most of your vision. With that in mind, ill happily take a dash like this.
It would have been nice if the controls controls weren't so low and so far away from the driver's eyes, a very poor design on my opinion. But I'm nitpicking here, as I do like these small 80's Cadillacs, especially the Allante. Well, I guess the Allante wasn't small...
I thought acceleration times were really good for a 155bhp V8 engine, I was expecting it to be a second or so slower in the 0-60mph.
Torque is helping a lot this case.
Key is the power output is absolutely pathetic and torque not great either. Ive had the Merc 260e they compared it too and in a bigger car with a 2.6L 6cyl its miles faster than this thing too.
@@Flying_GC Nah 🙄
30 yrs later that day has never came.
But for Lincoln it has...
But the CTS and now-defunct ATS gave the Germans a run for their money.
I will watch this comment's prediction with great expectations!
As a tech in the mid 90s, the biggest problem we saw wasn't the leaky engine, wasn't the electronic controls on the dash.. It was the electronic suspension system. There were 2 versions. 1 was a std touring suspension with traditional frt struts but rear air struts. The other was a performance handling package that had electronic variable struts. When those failed... holy smokes, the cost. On the std 1, the rear struts were prone to leak and once again, holy smokes the cost!
"Seats are great until you take a corner too fast " haha 😄
The only thing this car did was handle ok...I almost put one in a ditch around a hairpin turn should have been doing 15 20 mph I hit it at 40 and quickly found its limits..I'm glad even at that age I knew to turn back in and I saved it went off the road a little bit leaving behind a nice rut but I didn't flip it or crash so it wasn't a total fail..
Wow, Lexus had a 255hp 4.0L V8 and Cadillac had a 155hp 4.5L V8
Love these old videos, shows how far we have come.
I think the buick v6 had more power.
And in 1977, a 180hp 7.0L, 425ci big block. Nowadays, 7 liters can get you at least 650 horses.
In 2023 Honda gets 329 hp out of a 4 banger 😂
Long live the EPA! Look up 1969 numbers.
Thank you Motor Week!
I've always loved these!!
Somehow all Cadillac's reminds me funeral home :/
Me too. Lol. 🥴😑
4.5L V8 making 155HP? WTF...
chief tp I think Lexus has one out the same year with 250hp and it was only a 4.0 but correct me if I’m wrong
@@apexgt4 This is correct, it's the Toyota 1UZ-FE engine in the Lexus LS400. An engineering marvel.
Geez my Camry's 2.5 does more than that
Thank the EPA for that.
This was finally the car the Seville should've been in 1980, not a total Euro clone but with less Brougham froufrou and more performance-mindedness than other Caddys so as to continue appealing to a different customer than the DeVille and Fleetwood.
Instead we got the bustle back disco inferno seville
What a fucking car...
1989:”So while STS handling is a great leap forward for Cadillac, it’s not good enough to challenge a BMW”
2019: Same story
Drive a CTS-V after an M5 or a ATS-V after an M3 and tell me what the better handling car is. I own an M2 Competition by the way, so not Cadillac fanboying at all but judged just on handling and the newer Cadillac’s are superior to comparable BMW’s
jameswillard1 Don’t get me wrong, I like Cadillac, it’s just that for the last 30 years or so they’ve been playing catch up with Germany and Japan. Even if that is the case, I would much rather buy an M3 than an ATS-V, which is getting discontinued anyways
A lot of reviewers preferred the handling on Cadillac CTS’s and ATS’s over German competitors. When Motor Trend tested the C63 M3 and ATS-V, the Cadillac beat the M3
I was a serial BMW owner but I bought a CTS-V wagon because I needed the room for my 3 German Shepherds.
Had more fun and less trouble with that car than any BMW.
Other than tires and brakes it was almost trouble free for 159 K miles.
William Egler thats a ton of miles for a performance car
155 BHP from a 4.5l V8? and they wonder why the US car industry failed.
No kidding... With all that noise! Then you have to wonder will that engine pull that fatty?
155hp is typical for American V8s in the 80s'. That thing a decent amount of torque. It is a throttle body injected fuel system, after all. The port injected version of this engine had 200hp and about 270ft/lb of torque. Not mind blowing now, but good for the times.
It actually launched hard since good torque was available right off idle and built strongly up until about 2500 rpm it would feel as fast as more powerful V8 cars of its time, but after 2500rpm it just wheezed with power falling flat and just a bunch of noise, hence that is why the hp figure is so low. The awful 4 speed autos of this era also made things even worse since they had poor gearing and long shift times.
I actually like the design of the white one, the boxiness looks aggressive & the low chin splitter is super cool
my God, what a waste of displacement 🤣. love these retro reviews guys, good job on bringing them back
155-horsepower!..... LOL
Actually, that was a lot. The Olds 5.0 in the Cutlass of just a year or two behind made a tire-whipping140hp.
My brand-new '87 Camaro IROC (hi performance Camaro) came standard with a 145hp 5.0 V8. Mustang was already putting out 225hp with same size V8/ keeping up with the competition LoL
@@bruschmidt9943 : I don't remember any IROCS with that engine. They came out in 85 with the 190hp 305 4bbl standard with the 305 TPI as an option.
36k wow give me the Benz
This wasn't even in the same universe as a BMW of the same era, or even a Jaguar.
Yes it was fool
@@Len1977gt No it wasn't, moron
It didn't look horrible on the outside, though unmistakably generic GM affair, but that interior was hideous even then and doing a FWD V8 should be punishable by life-long hard labor in a goulag.
These first STS' are great looking cars, and in the revised later year/s, with the 4.9 v8, they are pretty great I only wish there were more of them around so I could find and buy a nice, clean one!
I always thought the Allante was, and still is, a very underrated car. Fortunately, an exceptionally nice one is affordable for most people and most have low miles.
I must say, I like the look of this Cadillac
"Blindingly fast acceleration......" 😂😂😂
The '70s Seville in the opening has a misaligned hood on the passenger side. Typical GM crap build quality.
Sales were so poor on the Seville, beginning in 1986 that Cadillac should've released the 1992 model in '89, new for '90. As it was, they were two years late, giving imports from Japan a clear advantage.
Motorweek is uncharactaristically critical here! I did not know they were capable of doing that.
This has to be one Cadillac's lamest attempts to appear “german”. This guys have been chasing the euro luxo cars since the early 80’s and failed almost every single time (except the ATS). Today Lincoln is doing WAY better embracing the traditional american luxo boat market. Shame on GM.
Yeah and look at Lincoln’s sales compared to Cadillacs…
What GM got wrong was that most if not all European FWD automobiles had engines of less than 2 litres so as not to induce torque steer!! What where they thinking of putting a whopping great 3.8 litre v6 driving the front wheels
Design was really good for the time but the mistake by management was to compete with Europeans at all. If they stuck to body on frame RWD V8 cars instead of abandoning them one by one they would have done well in that area. Toyota’s intro of the LS400 for not that much more money must have caused major buyers’ remorse for STS owners.
Toyota introduced a luxury car and it was instantly a legitimate competitor to the Germans. The LS actually influenced the luxury car market. 30 years later and Cadillac is still reinventing itself in its effort to compete with the now established brands. This isn't about talent but will. Toyota had the will to do what it takes to rival the Germans. Cadillac seems to want to compete but not willing to do what it takes.
@@guse1219 Cadillac should've been working to perfect a winning formula they had used for years. All they had to do was combine modern styling with solid handling, dependability, comfort, and efficiency. Instead they spent so much time trying to be something they weren't (imports) and lost their way in the process.
@@travelseatsyellowlab GM simply can't spend the money nor effort. They have shareholders to answer to, which want profits right now. GM has always played the short game and look at their cars now. Toyota played the long game and that's why they are at the top. It's not like these companies don't know how to make an excellent car. Some just choose not to.
@@CleanSC What a shame.
Their Inspiration was "European Cars that Europe would never make because they would be Garbage".. It's a rare market but GM hit it right on the head!!
Ah late 80's Cadillacs, nothing quite as awful
Now I see why people went for the Lexus and Mercedes-Benz.
And infiniti
@@alexander1485 Infiniti hardly made a dent in Cadillac sales, their (Infiniti) initial advertising campaign was quite weak and they've never really recovered.
Jerry Phillips why would you sink $2000 on a car worth $2000
Went for them and never came back.If they showed back up and tried a NorthStar that was enough to finish them for good
😆 blindingly fast acceleration of 8.9 sec 0-60mph...
This thing looks like the Grand Am my brother had.
My friend lived with his grandma who had one she bought new, don't know the year but this body style, we were young 16-23 and all beat the crap outta this car and it just never quit running.
As I'm watching this video, I remember watching it in 1989 on WNED Buffalo and remembering when a 30 year old car was a 1960!
The Lincoln didn't need a lame V8 to have as much power.
I miss these cars from GM. This "little limo" look they had across the board was classy. What I find amazing and amusing is that my current car only has a 2.0 turbo four banger under the hood with 245hp....half the cylinders and less than half the displacement but yet almost 100 more hp and gets 35mpg.
The Seville that came after this was stunning. This one just looks like any other cookie-cutter GM car at the time. The European cars they were trying to rival had a more personable quality to them.
$78,000 in today’s dollars for this. How did they sell even one?
Good lord I always forget how hideous 80s interiors were. 0/10
Personally I like to look, and I love the wood trim. But 150 hearse power from a 4.5 V8?! C’mon how disappointed would you be after shelling out the thick end of 35k.
$35 grand!? Damn that's $70 grand in today's money, shit!
that interior makes me want to puke 🤮
The un-Cadillac!!!!! THIS one is from the days when the division still knew how to make a car with some balls WITHOUT alienating their core audience.
core audience - people who do not like cars!
Geechh! I lost count how many times he mention the mame sts! Now i got the sts on my head all day!👋🤣👍thank's John Davies!
Better than STDs
They should've never made the SeVille FWD. worst mistake and it shared platform with other GM sedans. How'd thet expect to compete?? Weird. Interior design is ugly but very luxurious i give it that. Styling was clean but looks to GM-80s-generic looking. This car was such a flop. The 92 SVille that replaced this car was wayyyyyyy better lol
Cadillac really tried hard, but didn't exactly hit out out of the park with this one. The only Cadillac I'd really want to have is the old school Fleetwood Brougham / d'Elegance. If it came down to the STS and the Mercedes 260E, I'd take the 260E. Back then, Mercedes still made a good solid, over-engineered car that just looked more classy.
I feel like all GM did in the late 80’s was take a cheap model car like a Chevrolet Corsica and put Cadillac badges on it and a small V8 in it lol.
My Accord has a V6 and 200hp and it's 20 years old and runs like a clock. Who was GM kidding with this gussied up AnyCar!!
Cool exterior, but damn is that interior ugly.
Ugly and cheap. The plastics were hard and brittle even by the standards of the day, and the whole design looks as if six different committees were involved but never spoke to each other. Why does the driver's seat need all of those cheap toggle-switch buttons?
If GM was truly trying to go after import BMW and MB buyers with this car, one look at that dashboard/cabin and it would have sent people running out of the dealership. This car, like so many previous Cadillacs, missed the mark - which is too bad, because dynamically this car did have something to offer. It was much better made than previous Caddys and the V8 sounds great even if it is a little breathless on hard acceleration.
Sad to watch the degeneration of a once luxurious make slide down the slippery slope of "performance sedan" design. Luxury should be the pinnacle of one design, performance that of another. Trying to mix them together has ruined both.
In 1992 Cadillacs were ruined. The 4.6 and eventually the 4.8 Northstars were junk. The LW2 4.5 and the 4.9 are the only real Cadillac engines of the 80s and 90s. Unless you got a Fleetwood, then the LT1 350 was the cat's meow.
Greetings from the international space station!
This was about 3 years after Cadillac basically abandoned there loyal customers with horrible customer service and front wheel drive garbage that nobody was asking for! Every person who bought one of these within 3 years went to Lexus,Infiniti,BMW,Mercedes and never came back...
Only Cadillac can make fake wood look like fake wood.
155HP from a big ole V8. Seems like GM could have done a bit better than that, even in those automotive dark ages.
Blame california
Don't look at horsepower numbers only. These cars had a good amount of torque. Have you driven one? If you have you wouldn't complain. The 4.5 and later 4.9 were Cadillacs best engines. They are bullet proof.
Kenneth lol. Torque is a function of horsepower and can be multiplied with gearing. These engines from that generation started off with a displacement of 4.1 liters. I had an 86 Eldorado and while a nice car couldn’t get out of its own way.(130 hp) These engines had very small valves and a very restrictive exhaust manifold. All done for efficient low RPM operation. Going to port injection and variable valve timing would dramatically help pushrod engines in the future.(The LS series engines)
@@curtisssmith5204 You are very knowledgeable from what you said. I agree the 4.1 wasn't the most powerful but I owned a 1988 Cadillac Eldorado with the same 4.5 that was featured in this video and for such a heavy car, it would pull and pull and pull. Plenty of power in my opinion.
Curtiss Smith
The other way around. HP = torque X rpm. Engines aren’t geared, so torque can’t be changed that way.
This was actually a nice nice car, nice size also. The Continental that was out during this time mentioned, that it's cheaper, was a piece of junk and that basically was per my local Lincoln Mercury dealership
4.5L TBI fast acceleration? Bahahahahaha!!!!
Cadillac brought you POS engines like the 4,6,8, this crappy 4.5 engine and the NorthStar. With a line up like this through the years how is it they are still around?
The 4.6.8 was just a detuned old 472 which is a great engine . The problem was the weak computers of the time. Also the 4.5 was a big improvement over the earlier 4.1in both reliability and performance
155 Hp from a V-8? wow, LAME
That's like an average 2.0 I4 these days
That 4.5 will run forever!!! Ours has 275K on it and is all original
This is the worst Seville. The next generation (92-97) was a huge move forward.
original commentary muted without closed captioning is enough | THIS RIGHT H'ERE?! ©
God, even 'dechromed' this thing looks like a dishwasher in drag. You can even see the part lines in the body work with how tacked on the bumpers look.
I'm 38 and was obsessed with cars since I was a child. I can't remember the last time I saw one of these cars...the car looked like it was falling apart over bumps. Now I understand why.
@Paul Lunsford and what is your point?