(first posted 2/5/2018) After WW2, Cadillac and Lincoln emerged as the big two players in American luxury automobiles. And while they came to define “American luxury” with their living-room-on-wheels, land-yacht isolation chambers, more recent decades have seen both brands make greater efforts to compete with luxury brands from around the globe with smaller luxury sedans placing a high emphasis on performance and driver involvement.
Circa 2000, the two most poised sedans in this category were the Cadillac Seville and the Lincoln LS. While both targeted much of the same competition, and on some levels each other — at least until the Cadillac CTS, a more direct LS competitor, arrived in 2003 — they each offered their respective brand’s distinctive take on the midsize luxury sports sedan, leading to two cars that were radically different from one another despite their similar motives.
Starting with the Cadillac, the fifth-generation Seville, released as a 1998, was a cautious update of its groundbreaking predecessor, a car that put Cadillac back on the map as a viable world-class competitor to brands such as Mercedes-Benz and Lexus. Retaining the fourth generation’s front-wheel drive layout, SLS and STS trims each with their own versions of Cadillac’s transverse Northstar V8, and sole 4-speed automatic, among other improvements, the somewhat less special feeling 1998-2004 Seville failed to gain the same level of praise and success that the 1992-1997 model did.
The Lincoln LS, meanwhile, was a completely new model with no direct predecessor in Lincoln’s lineup, unless one considers the recently departed Mark VIII personal luxury coupe as one. Sharing its all-new platform with the Jaguar S-Type, the Lincoln LS was rear-wheel drive, available in the choice of V6 or V8, both longitudinally-mounted and paired to a 5-speed automatic, with a 5-speed manual available with the V6 only.
One might be quick to call the LS the clear driver’s choice, given its rear-wheel drive, near 50/50 weight distribution, and more modern underpinnings. While true in most respects, especially looking back through contemporary reviews of each, the Seville, particularly the STS, was by no means a car lacking performance credentials.
For starters, both versions of the Seville’s 4.6-liter DOHC Northstar V8 put out more power than any of the LS’s engines available over the course of its life. Rated at 275 horsepower/300 lb-ft torque in the SLS and 300 horsepower/295 lb-ft torque in the STS, at the time of introduction, the Seville was the most powerful front-wheel drive sedan on the market at the time.
Featuring a MacPherson strut front and semi-trailing arm rear suspension, the Seville added standard StabiliTrak, an intelligent system that applied one or more of the antilock brakes in maneuvers when individual wheel slippage was detected. Initial STS/SLS models featured a continuously variable road sensing suspension, with the more advanced MagneRide active suspension replacing it midway through the 2002 model year.
Handling for both Sevilles, even the SLS with its smaller wheels, non-performance tires, and softer suspension was generally found favorable, with even Jeremy Clarkson having a few kind words to say about it. Common points of criticism were largely directed at the Seville’s considerable torque steer and less-refined 4-speed automatic when most competitors were sporting 5-speeds.
Unlike the Caddy, which sought to appease both seasoned Cadillac buyers and conquest buyers of European and Japanese luxury sports sedans, the Lincoln LS was designed from the ground up as a sports sedan that challenged traditional Lincoln values and was capable of going head-to-head with the best from Germany, with the E39 BMW 5 Series serving as the benchmark.
On paper, the Lincoln LS had all the appropriate qualifications of a true sports sedan: rear-wheel drive, double wishbone front and rear suspensions, Jaguar-sourced V6 and V8 engines, 5-speed automatic and 5-speed manual transmissions, and near 50/50 weight distribution. Adding to that, the lengthiest wheelbase in its class and an extremely rigid chassis, the LS was decidedly more performance-oriented than the Seville STS and SLS. No matter the model, the Lincoln LS received overwhelming praise for its steering feel and feedback, its overall agility, and impressive cornering ability.
The V6 model, its DOHC 3.0-liter initially making 210 horsepower/205 lb-ft torque (later 220/215 and then 232/220) was generally deemed too weak for the 3,600-lb LS, though it received praise for offering a 5-speed manual transmission. The 3.9-liter DOHC V8, on the other hand, was a much better-suited match for the LS, making 252 horsepower/267 lb-ft torque through 2002 and then 280 horsepower/286 lb-ft torque thereafter, but added a substantial price hike and was not available with a manual transmission.
The general consensus among reviewers was that the LS, in any flavor, while not as engaging to drive or as polished as European rivals, chiefly the BMW 5 Series, was the most dynamic American sports sedan on the market, at least in its first several years. Unlike the Seville, the LS received a greater amount of improvements and refinements over the course of its run, most notably a significant refresh 2003 model year which tweaked exterior and interior styling, brought along mechanical upgrades, and added comfort and convenience enhancements.
The designs of both were decidedly “international”, a term the automotive press back in the day liked to use to refer to any American car that didn’t look traditionally American. In typical American approach, both the LS and Seville were larger than their targeted European and Japanese rivals — several inches longer and wider, and several hundred pounds heavier — making it hard to fit either neatly into one segment.
Straddling the luxury segments, both vehicles were aimed against cars such as the BMW 5 Series, Mercedes E-Class, Audi A6, Lexus GS, Acura RL, and the LS’s own platform mate, the Jaguar S-Type. On the lower end, the LS also competed against entry-level/compact luxury sedans such as the BMW 3 Series, Lexus ES, Acura TL, and Jaguar X-Type, and on the high end, the Seville was often compared to flagships such as the Lexus LS, Mercedes S-Class, Infiniti Q45, and Audi A8.
The Seville’s styling was an evolution of the preceding generation, with its predecessor’s sharper “origami” angles and lines giving way to a softer, more melted down look that while still distinctive, didn’t exude the same striking grandness of the original.
Despite a longer wheelbase and shorter overhangs than its predecessor, the 1998-2004 Seville looked less athletic and more bloated with its softer contours. While difficult to pinpoint just why, it didn’t come off as quite so exclusive either, seeming more parts bin GM than the Seville that preceded it.
The Lincoln LS sported a decidedly more European appearance, its styling heavily influenced by both the E39 BMW 5 Series and C5 Audi A6. While successfully blending luxury and sporting styling cues, the LS unfortunately suffered from ill proportions and too many of these design elements clashing with one another.
This most notably included its tall roofline, battering ram-like bumpers, large wheel housings with small wheels, and otherwise aggressive front end marred with a Town Car-like grille. It was as if Lincoln designers listened to the input of Dieter from Düsseldorf and Dean from Detroit, and tried to combine all of their suggestions into one discordant design.
Interior-wise the Seville and LS boasted the expected leather, wood trim, and numerous power conveniences, with both cars featuring attractive dash layouts. Although it was largely a carryover from the 1992-1997, the slightly more costly Seville’s interior still came off as more upscale and exclusive, with marginally better quality materials.
A nod to its higher price point, STS models gained a few extra features over the SLS, including perforated leather seating surfaces, extended wood trim and most notably, Adaptive Seating Control. When engaged, each front seat’s ten air cells would automatically adjust every four minutes, responding to the body’s position to minimize fatigue. Massaging lumbar and adaptive massage were further enhancements available on the STS.
The LS’s interior, while clean and ergonomically correct, somehow didn’t convey the same level of premium ambiance as the Seville, and neither was quite on par with most European/Japanese rivals. Apart from slabs of wood ornamentation, door panels were uninspired and unadorned with any leather inserts or other soft-touch surfaces.
Plastics, leathers, and trim — both the wood and later models’ “satin-nickel” accents — just didn’t come across as fitting of the LS’s positioning and price point, which easily approached $50,000. Lacking the refinement of competitors, the LS’s interior spoke more Mercury Sable than BMW 5 Series.
Regarding the success of each model, both sold the greatest amount of units in their first two full years on the market, then consistently subsided. For comparison, the BMW 5 Series, despite its aging design, saw U.S. sales steadily rise over its lifetime, then jump considerably following its 2004 redesign. Sales, however, can never be used as a sole measure of a car’s success nor its overall merits.
While never regarded as perfect, both cars should be praised for their strides made to target younger buyers, compete more globally, and shake their respective brand’s stuffy and elderly images with two very world-class sports sedans. Unfortunately neither were improved quite enough to retain interest among buyers and the overall market.
As different as the cars themselves, so are their respective lasting legacies. The front-wheel drive Seville SLS and STS was replaced with a more appropriately-proportioned rear- and all-wheel drive STS for 2005. It joined the smaller rear-wheel drive CTS, which was truly the Cadillac sports sedan that broke through. The current third generation CTS is ultimately, the spiritual successor to the front-wheel drive Seville, now having filled the STS’s size and price class.
Lincoln on the other hand, seemed to have second thoughts following the discontinuation of the LS in 2006, abandoning any further efforts to create an “international” sports sedan and reverting to what it was known for, building comfortable, easy-to-drive cars. The rear-wheel drive LS’s front- and all-wheel drive Zephyr/MKZ successor was truthfully a more direct successor to the 2002 Continental, something that has become even more evident with the latest MKZ.
Photographed: January 2017 – Whitman, Massachusetts
Related Reading:
As in this article, I hear the fifth gen seville not being as special as the fourth gen. Why is that? It seems to me the fifth gen made many improvements.
I think it was really the evolutionary styling and the relatively unchanged powertrain. It didn’t make the same impact as its predecessor did in ’92 because it was merely an improved version of a familiar product and not a shocking departure from convention, like the ’92 had been.
It was also becoming harder to swallow its FWD platform. When the fourth-generation car came out, there were several other FWD cars in roughly the same price realm (like the second-generation Acura Legend) that looked like comers. By the time the fifth generation arrived, the FWD entries in this class had largely been relegated to either a different audience or as half-hearted also-rans.
A neighbor of mine has an LS, and I agree with most of the criticism voiced here: the wheels/tires look too small for the body. The Cadillac on the other hand looks like it’s about 10% larger than it has to be.
And yet, on looks alone I would rather have had the LS and add bigger/wider wheels.
Unfortunately, looks weren’t the only problem the LS had, as pointed out, the engines were down on power and as owners would find out, the assembly quality was no better than a run-of-the-mill Ford.
As for their contemporary “decendants”, I would still rather have the Lincoln. IMHO, the styling of the CTS and CT6 just doesn’t hit the sweet spot for me.
I’ll never understand why so many people on here prefer the Continental over the CT6. The Caddy has a better, RWD/AWD platform while the Conty is a (nicely) massaged Fusion underneath. And, I know taste is subjective, but the Continental’s styling disappoints me. In person, it really lacks presence which surprised me…. it looks nice in photos.
As for their interiors, I’d give the nod to the Lincoln.
Personally, I prefer the looks of the Continental because Cadillac’s sedans haven’t changed that much in more than a decade. They are attractive though.
And I actually have the opposite reaction to the Continental’s styling. I think it looks boring in pictures but more exciting in person. But in general I do like what both brands are doing with theirs cars. I just think Cadillac needs to switch it up a bit with whatever they end up doing for their next gen vehicles.
While I’m not a particular fan of the CT6, I’m even less of a fan of the Continental. It has a few cool elements to it, but overall it just doesn’t come across as anything special. In person, it looks even less premium, and I really cannot get over the droopy rear.
While I’d hardly call myself a big fan of Cadillac’s design language, I do give them credit for its distinctiveness and Cadillac’s commitment to it, developing it with each successive model for the better in my mind. The CT6 is meh, but I do really like the CTS.
Interior hands down goes to the Continental though.
Excellent write up Brendan. The storied past of American luxury brands yielded some interesting, yet flawed products, and you did a great job pointing that out.
It’s quite ironic how Lincoln’s sedan approach mirrors that of pre-2003 Cadillac. The MKZ is front wheel drive and boasts good driving dynamics and massaging seats. Contrast that with the CTS, which explicitly aims to compete with the European heavyweights with a performance oriented rear wheel drive platform. And it looks like Lincoln may have won this battle, as the MKZ sold more than the CTS and ATS combined. I believe the Continental also outsold the CT6.
I think Cadillac’s sedans are facing the situation that is similar to the mainstream, midsize sedan models not named Camry, Accord, or Altima: in a shrinking market, customers will just gravitate toward the nameplates with the most established reputation.
Probably one of my biggest complaints about the CT6 has to do with the name. The CT part aside (what does CT mean/stand for?), the “6” leaves me with the impression that this is not the “flagship”, but is the junior edition.
The styling? It does have presence, but the front end looks like a 21st century update of the 55 Chevy.
Actually Will, I agree with you. The new Continental is just boring to me, not helped that Lincoln made the decision to base the MKZ off of it shortly after. The car has little styling presence to it, and when I heard Ford was making it FWD, V6 powered, I went “Ah, I see they have not learned from history” The Cadillac CT6, the first time I saw one in traffic, I went “Wow, is that good looking.” And keep in mind, I’m not the biggest fan of the Art and Science look, so for me to say that, it was really impressive. The fact that it is it’s own RWD platform is another plus for me too.
Though I must admit, Lincoln’s interiors have gotten much nicer and more inviting looking. I would easily take the Lincoln’s interior (particularly the seats) over the Cadillac interior.
I work at a livery company. They drive Cadillac XTS’s and Lincoln Continentals. The Continental looks good, but the reliability has been horrible. My company has two. The fancy electronic door handles are failing. And they cost $1,200 a piece to replace. One car is on its fourth computer in one year. The other has two passenger side doors bouncing around in the frame. Luckily they have not fallen open yet. The interior may look good, but the quality is not. The pass through to the trunk has a weak hinge and both have broken. The brakes are weak and then grab. The ride is nice, but the cars spend more time in the shop than on the road. In comparison, the Cadillac’s are a bit boring, but they are holding up much better.
See, to me the CT6 looks like yet another repackaging of the same meh package Cadillac’s been peddling for 15 years now. I sat in both at NAIAS-the Continental hands-down has the nicer interior (although the Cadillac’s massage thing was hard to argue with). The CT6 is a nicer car than Caddy’s been making for awhile, but I’d have the Continental over it without a second thought.
And can I just say that Cadillac needs to kill the damned Arts and Sciences language already? I get it, you had a breakout design, but it’s been 15 years now, and I wasn’t that keen on it to start!
On looks alone I’d have the Seville. Even though it really was less exclusive-looking in this new generation, it still looked a lot more masculine and purposeful than the Lincoln.
And what IS it about Cadillac that makes them take a brilliant car and make it look less brilliant in the second generation?
This generation of Seville was supposed to be the 1996 Olds Aurora.
Err.. What? The Aurora was the Aurora. The second generation Aurora was going to be a differently-positioned Eighty Eight replacement, but was repurposed when Buick pulled out of a replacement for the Riviera. The would-be second generation Aurora was never developed. The Seville was always the Seville.
The Riviera and Eldorado were dying. Oldsmobile was probably terminating at this point although this was not made public until later.
The prior generation of Eldorado was a car that was both visually stunning and technically impressive when it came out in the early 90s. This one was less so a decade later, but I still find them appealing.
I was really high on the LS when it came out, but it just had too much against it for my crush to last. It suffered too many common Ford-fails of its era: not enough power, undistinguished styling and underwhelming interiors. These did not distinguish themselves in service either, as I understand things. Today I look at these sort of like I look at GM’s Y body compacts of the early 60s – a dead end platform with too many compromises to be a really satisfying car.
Oh Brendan, you lured me right in. Two American luxury sedans I really like but neither are perfect.
These are two of the only American luxury sedans you’ll find on the used car market here (albeit in very small numbers) because both were sold in Japan and so some grey imports have made their way here.
I test drove an ’03 Seville STS and loved how smoothly, buttoned-down and refined it drove and how nice the power delivery was. While I wasn’t driving like a maniac and the roads were pretty good quality, I found torque steer to be minimal and the overall driving experience quite nice. The interior was also elegant with the Zebrano wood and electroluminescent gauges…
…but also some rather greasy plastics and a pretty tight rear seat for such a big car.
I almost test drove an LS but I decided not to waste the dealer’s time. I’ve always been curious though. Such a pity its interior is rubbish… Small, fiddly buttons, bland plastics, basic design. I love that Ford developed it though and I’m still annoyed they never bothered with a second-generation.
I’ll disagree with you on the proportions. I’ve always found these to be wonderfully proportioned although you may have a point about the wheels. The ’05-06 V8 Sports look mean, especially in black.
You also linked my favourite LS commercial. Some of them were stupid but I liked that they used the same Get A Move On song during the LS’ run, like it was the car’s theme song.
Despite the Lincoln LS’s lack of success in the marketplace, I’m thankful for the DEW platform. Even though Ford abandoned its plans to use a decontented version of this platform for the Mustang, some DEW platform pieces made it to the S197 Mustang.
It may be a stretch, but I’m fairly convinced that the S197’s chassis rigidity and far-forward placement of the front wheels were at least partly the result of having some DEW platform DNA. If nothing else it distinguished the S197 by having its origins in an upscale vehicle, versus previous Mustangs which were derived from the Falcon, Pinto and Fairmont.
Not mentioned in the article or the comments is the relationship between the LS and the then contemporary Thunderbird. Platform is shared; dash and V-8 engine quite similar. The T-Bird is a very nice car with only known problem area the coil over ignition, so probably a fault with the LS too. A friend of mine who likes older luxury sedans replaced his ’92 Mercedes 300E with a V-8 LS (I bought the 300E).
I don’t have direct experience with either car, but the Thunderbird and it’s Lincoln “sister” are supposed to be plagued with electrical problems.
I considered linking the Thunderbird and the Jaguar S Type in my previous comments as a possible reason for why the proportions seem so “off” for the LS.
Interesting comparison of these two cars. I had a later-generation LS V6 as a rental car around 2006 or so. I remember thinking it showed promise in the way Lincoln appeared to be thinking. I sincerely hoped they would continue along that path, but it didn’t last very long. I knew that was dead in the water when I saw later Linclons, particularly the God-awful MKZ. My first thought was of a quote from my uncle: “That’s not a Lincoln. Kennedy got killed in a Lincoln!”
The Oldsmobile Aurora was mentioned above. I thought that car (and its philosophy) had great promise, but that was shot down with the second generation.
As BMW fan, I do like how Cadillac has finally come around. I’m still not a huge fan of their design language (although it is getting better as of late), but from what I understand, some are truly great dynamically. I really think that, if there’s an American brand that could get me out of a BMW, it’d be a Cadillac.
Of course, then I’d have to play it up and get my golf bag, a glass of Scotch and some Dean Martin music to live up to the stereotype in my mind…;)
I’d prefer to see LS versus RWD Cadillac CTS story. The FWD Seville was on its last legs in 2002.
All yours! Get writing 🙂
Nice write up. Here in Germany we only had the Seville. It compared to the Mercedes S-class, BMW 7 series, Jaguar XJ 8 etc. If I remember correctly it was a little cheaper here than the domestic ones, with a price under 100.000 DM around 2000/2001. I worked at a GM dealer in my hometown back then and had the opportunity to drive the Caddy. It was nice to drive in a so luxurious and powerfull car, but otherwise I had just finished my driving license so I was not very critical.
The LS wasn´t available here, although there were plans to launch it on the european market. Don´t knoe why they droped them. Maybe they thought it would cannibalize the Jaguar S-type, or it just wasn´t good enough to compete against the BMW 5 series. I remember the german car magazine “Auto Motor und Sport” testing and denigrate the LS. In their eyes it looked like a 80s style Mitsubishi.
Stylewise I would prefer the Lincoln. Well, and RWD is also more my thing.
..Jaguar-sourced V6 and V8 engines.., I thought Jaguar sourced their engines by Ford?
Ford owned Jag at this point, so the LS and the S-Type Jag were dependent on each other I think. The LS was an American Sports Sedan, meaning it was bigger than the 3-series but not really a 5-series BMW.
The SLS version of the Seville was a luxury sedan, smaller than the de Ville, but not much smaller. It was a continuation of the concept of the first generation Seville. The Sports Sedan version of the Seville was the STS, which had a computer controlled suspension. Beginning with the 1998 model (with the melted styling) the body is much stiffer than any previous Cadillac. How it might have compared to the LS I don’t know. The STS did not do well in comparison tests with the BMW or Mercedes, or even Audi.
The LS was comparable to the first generation CTS. A second generation LS was due about the time Ford dumped Jag.
Brendan, excellent piece as usual. One of my university faculty/administrator colleagues bought a new black LS early in the car’s run. He loved it, especially the handling, and given the heavy urban traffic in SoCal, did not complain about the V6’s performance. However, as DanEKay points out, what did him in was reliability. The Lincoln was constantly going into the dealer for lots of little problems (many electrical, I think), and IIRC when the transmission developed problems, the car was gone. Another colleague bought the Jaguar S-Type, three of them in fact. The third was finally sorted out and she still drives it today.
Brendan’s analysis of the styling miscues is spot on. I always wanted to like the LS but there were so many aspects of the styling that just did not work. I never minded the adaptation of the TC grille, however.
Despite being a sort of Calvinist Luddite type I really liked the LS because of the available manual transmission.
I’d always had it in the back of my mind that it would make a fine replacement for our 2001 Focus, and being a Ford product I would still have father in law support for parts and service.
However our 2001 lasted until late 2017, by which point any used LS was too old as well, so we went for a newer Focus.
One of my automotive regrets, that and never having a Jeep XJ Cherokee.
Very nice comparison and analysis. Neither of these cars did anything for me at the time. I wanted to like the LS, but just couldn’t muster it. I didn’t like its styling; it really did look like a big Mitsubishi, FWIW. I just didn’t feel that Ford had was really committed. Frankly, Ford was a mess at the time, especially Lincoln, so it would have taken more than this effort to convince me they were really serious about this space.
The SLS? Meh, to use an overused expression. And that’s when I’m feeling generous. The styling was duller than its predecessor, and I just couldn’t take it seriously either.
I always liked understated LS styling, especially LSE. If not for reliability issues, I might have one instead of MkZephyr.
My Dad seriously considered the 3.0 Lincoln LS when it debuted, and he was very much one of those boomers who favored European and Japanese cars through the 80s and 90s – up to that point he had a Jetta GLI, Saab 900, Audi 100, and Nissan Maxima SE – So Lincoln did an excellent job on the LS on paper. I think all the critiques mentioned are exactly what did it in, the very dull interior in particular I think. He ended up buying a Lexus GS300 instead, which was far nicer inside, with all else being relatively equal.
The designs of both were decidedly “international”, a term the automotive press back in the day liked to use to refer to any American car that didn’t look traditionally American
I remember that, and now the same press often bitches(rightfully) about how everything looks the same. BMW and Mercedes didn’t hit many stylistic homeruns in the last 20 years but they never copied other designs, even diminished they have an inimitable identity. The LS was such a self conscious design effort, it practically said “not your father’s Lincoln” without the dumb ad campaign. Few people actually dislike the LS styling and proportions, I think, certainly not if you like BMW designs, but it’s inherently going to look “off” because it’s not, and that in a nutshell this is why modern American cars often look bland.
It’s so unfortunate American design came to be so deeply associated with vinyl puffy roofs, tinny bright trim and other trappings of the short lived brougham era, with critiques ignoring the nearly three decades of great design preceding, and the immediate lambasting anything not conforming to the contemporary international language.
Two cars that failed at both of their missions.
The Seville is just flawed. Speaking from experience with the Eldorado (which is going to continue to be my ride because of my father’s refusal to understand the sunk cost fallacy), the torque steer is no joke. If you put your foot down hard enough, it’ll squirrel out badly. Even with traction control on, I often feel like the car might veer hard enough into something else and its a pretty jarring and unfun experience. Of course, the Northstar is a great engine, so long as it doesn’t overheat. Once that happens, those headbolts are going out back and that headgasket goes bye bye, once that happens, you might as well junk that thing because there’s no guarantee it won’t happen again. (I speak from experience.) The only way to avoid this is if you buy an aftermarket kit that restuds the cylinder heads, but those kits cost 600 a piece and that’s not counting parts and labor (Something I regret not showing my father sooner.) Of course, that’s not counting the limitations of FWD for a sports sedan. I was often of the opinion Cadillac should’ve made the STS RWD and I still believe that whole heartedly. I understand why it was FWD, but I still feel it limits the car. This Seville isn’t even attractive, as full of missed potential as the 1992-97 Seville was, it was a very good design, probably one of the best designs to have come from GM in a long time. The 98 Seville just looked porky and cheap, and despite being on a new platform, it looked like GM was trying to apply new tricks to an outdated platform to make it look fresh.
As for the LS, I never cared for its faux BMW design, but others may disagree. The big problem with the LS, besides the later sordid reputation it got for reliability later on, was the drivetrain options. You could either have a manual transmission but only for the V6 models (and even then, only from 2000-2), or you could have a V8, but it only came with the same automatic used in the Thunderbird. Why not have a Manual V8 option? I don’t know if the reason was cost, or that the Jaguar sourced V8 wasn’t compatible with a manual, or that Ford feared putting a manual in the LS would’ve made it faster than the Mustang. Whatever the case, I feel like if Ford was super serious about it (which I get the impression they were), a manual V8 combo should’ve been an option.
Although I will say this, in the defense of the Seville, at least it planted the seeds for current Cadillacs. At least they didn’t give up, they recognized whatever problems they had, and now we got some performance cars from Cadillac that have been praised as being genuine BMW competitors.
My 2002 Seville LS did not ever show any torque steer. Non of my full size FWD’s ever showed any torque steer. However my 1983 Skyhawk was quite bad if one front wheel had more traction than the other.
I didn’t notice the torque steer in the ’03 Seville I test drove, although I wasn’t hooning around. I figured GM had done a better job dialling it down with the G-Body than in the older K-Body platform the Eldorado soldiered on with up until its end.
That could be possible. I’ve also never hooned my car severely, often times it happens when I accidentally step on the gas a little too hard during a turn and the traction control kicks on to go “Easy tiger” while my car shoots off in one direction and I get a massive jolt that pretty much makes me clench. I’m sure GM probably did do a better job, but I can’t verify it.
(Also the Eldorado was E-Body based not K-Body. I don’t know if the K and E Body cars shared parts that weren’t just interior trim and pieces.)
Ah yes, apologies for the mix-up. Of course, half the time with GM platform codes it’s all nonsense… As become Gs, Cs and Hs are interchangeable, etc. From 1980 onwards, the E-Body and K-Body were almost identical under the skin; I don’t think there are any major differences under the metal between a ’92 Seville and a ’92 Eldorado. It’s only in ’98 when they finally diverged.
The 92 Seville and Eldorado were upgraded de Ville bodies.
One time with my 98 Aurora with the transmission in sport mode, I floored it to pass someone and there was a momentary bit of torque steer. Any time I floored the 2002 Seville to pass I never noticed any torque steer. My 1986 Electra T-type never seemed to exhibit torque steer either, but downshifts would seem to accompanied by the engine/transaxle shifting about some.
I wanted so much to like the LS, but the styling was just a bit off. Something about the greenhouse that just didn’t work. To me the C pillar and the little window before it are huge styling cues and these are just too bland and generic on the LS. Recall renting one on a business trip some years back and while nice, it was nothing memorable. At least the Caddy has presence, something missing with the LS. Don’t know much about the current MKZ, but I love the styling. Good to see Lincoln is trying.
Also Brendan, another excellent, well-written and thoroughly researched article. I look forward to your next one.
The Lincoln reminded of a Mitsubishi Diamante stylewise. They had alot of electrical issues and leaks. I think love lincoln should have done a restyle of the mark viii or put a Lincoln grill on a cougar instead of this.
Seville had the problemstic Northstar and boring styling and seemed less popular or did they just blend in.
Agree about the LS’s unfortunate Diamante resemblance. It had potential, but the execution (especially the interior) came across as half-hearted to me.
The Seville actually looks like a 1989-1994 Nissan Maxima from some angles from the front. They don’t look that similar in pictures, yet something about the proportions (maybe the overhang and length of the headlights?) makes them doppelgängers to my eye in person.
In my opinion, these money wasting exercises for the engineering, and the results are not good except getting few positive reviews from car magazines. Saddly to see Cadillac is still trying in a car decay market. Teo decades after, the three Germans are doing better than ever, Benze E class, BMW 3 series and Audis A4 are common sight in NY region, and thier SVUs are even more popular, the retirees buy them to upgrade thier vehicles. Japanese models that went after these German cars are in retreat, just look at GS, IS, RL, TL and G and M, they are hard to find now.
I will side with the bean counters on this for US auto makers, just build the Pickups and SUVs and then find another upcoming trend before the internal combustion engine is obsolete.
Both cars are a product of companies trying, with limited success, to bring to market exactly what the market told them to bring, and then the market turned up their nose at the offerings. Surveys of potential customers showed that they wanted a car with the qualities of a BMW or Mercedes, and nothing like what their parents had purchased. At that point in the late 90s-early 00s, tastes had turned away from anything American and squarely at European design and feel. The Japanese were still copying the Germans with success, and the Americans thought that a copy of a BMW was exactly what the US market was looking for. I give GM credit for making a FWD platform even close to the BMW benchmark, and I give Ford credit for using their Jaguar asset to build a platform that was NOT American in feel. However, neither succeeded, and really, how could they? One does not buy a Timex if one really wants a Rolex, regardless of the quality of the Timex or the lower price. Plus, we really saw that this was the era that cemented social cache on buying the “right” car, not the best one. Sadly, this is still true. Most want to be seen driving a status symbol rather than the best car on the market. If Dacias were the fashion, we would see them selling like hotcakes. We like cars as fashion accessories or appliances. Either expensive and obviously so, or dull as dishwater but common as air.
The hoopla surrounding the development and launch of the LS was astounding. The near 50-50 weight distribution. The available Getrag 5. The belief that Lincoln finally had BMW and Mercedes so perfectly targeted in its Lincoln star crosshairs. The fact that it was awarded the first Motor Trend Car of the Year award for the turn of a new century. I dutifully kept up with the press coverage of this car and eagerly awaited seeing it in person for the first time. That time came at an auto show in Atlanta. I climbed in the rear seat (the front seats were already occupied by likeminded curious onlookers) and I remember sensing a palpable, collective sense of, “this is it?” The black on black V8 LS generated a crowd of people several deep, but there was no real buzz or excitement. The interior was underwhelming and, perhaps because of the color scheme, very dreary. The exterior rather dowdy. Lincoln’s first truly serious attempt at a sports sedan, and the wheels don’t fill their wells? Maybe it was a victim of its own marketing. Maybe the drum roll lasted so long that nothing would have satiated those standing in line for their first real look. Maybe oohing, awing and fawning over the red Thunderbird convertible a few steps back with a nearly identical dashboard and switchgear as the LS, ironically, stole its thunder. Or, maybe a thorough test drive was necessary to appreciate its Nuremberg-proven dynamics. But, alas, this was a show, not a track. And for me, after this showing of the new LS, any desire to drive or further experience it evaporated.
Yes,the new “international size” Seville gave Cadillac a serious contender against such European sedans as Mercedes-Benz. Styling relied more on good taste than high drama, and the Seville look influenced GM designs for more than a decade.
I was excited about the Jaguar based LS until I got to know Jaguars! The engines were shared by both models and Jaguar V8s in general, are not robust engines. Timing chain issues are common once the mileage reaches higher numbers. Cadillac had gotten the NorthStar issues pretty well sorted out by then.Though they looked very similar to the previous model, the Cadillac was on a different platform. Torque steer was pronounced on the more powerful STS models. For “normal” driving conditions I don’t think that many drivers would have a problem with the FWD Caddys. Where the Caddy didn’t perform well was in the status race. They were nice cars, but mags like Road and Track, and Car and Driver were taken as gospel, and according to them, only old fashioned, out of touch, dummies would consider spending their money on American iron.
I recently bought a ’97 supercharged Riviera and I find the power and handling to be fine. Sure it’s FWD, and I know the difference, I’ve got two Mustang GTs. The Riv is great on the highway and back roads as long as I leave my Smokey and the Bandit fantasies behind.
…in the late 90s and early 00s, tastes had turned away from anything American…
You could see this happen. For my niece’s husband, the progression was from a Honda Prelude to an Acura Legend sedan to a BMW 3 Series sedan. He currently is on his second 3 Series, the dimensions of which- 186x72x57- are within inches of the 2003 CTS- 190x71x57. The Seville we are looking at here- however nicely designed- was dimensionally in de Ville territory- 201x75x56. Rather than try to cover all bases, Cadillac might have been better off with the 2003-sized CTS as their only sport sedan offering. It was a mistake to keep enlarging it. Just stand pat, and let the 3 Series catch up in size. The first gen CTS- apparently designed by Rybicki- was a muted version of the Art and Science design language. Just right in my opinion. But going forward, they doubled down on the Art and Science
look, losing a lot of potential customers in the process.
The Art and Science look was actually the creation of Caddillac’s Chief of Design at the time, Kip Wasenko. He penned the Evoq concept car, which led to the 2004 production XLR. His daily driver was apparently a vintage Ferrari. A little like the glass and steel architects who tend to live in- or have their offices in- a Victorian structure. He is described as “having a passion for Italian design”, but the XLR seems to be mostly influenced by Legos, not Ferrari.