1992 Seville STS interior, this was SO MUCH BETTER in terms of the dash layout and gauge package vs the 1990 Seville STS I owned. I still liked the real burled walnut in the 1990 better than the zebrano in the 1992. The 1990 also had a rear console with two rear bucket seats, console was all burled walnut. Back seat looked like a private jet, but it was a bit tight(not horrible, but small for a Cadillac). Anyways, I personally love that shade of brown leather in the 1992, it was the same as the 1990 I owned.



For 1998 the Seville had a redesigned dash. Look back at that earlier picture of the SC300 interior. Cadillac obviously had a bit of Lexus envy, gauges and the center stack arrangement are total ripoffs lol. Still its a great design IMO. Only quality thing I can fault Cadillac for is the top of the dash likes to come unglued after a few years and starts to curl at the corners. No idea how you'd fix that or how much it would cost, but the guys at the Cadillac forum seem to have a DIY solution for everything short of N* headgaskets.



I still like that 90's Seville and Eldorado interior better than their current offerings, they were great designs and done pretty well in terms of materials/fit/finish. I really wanted to like the 90's Seville and Eldorado, heck I almost bought an Eldorado with the Northstar, until I read about how they are total piles of garbage under the hood.

 

It is interesting that there is so much love for the FWD STS and I guess SLS models from the 90s. Yet people on this site ***** and moan about RWD. But then Cadillac does RWD in 2004 for the new STS and nobody cares.

 

FWD, if its DONE RIGHT, is fine for an interstate cruiser, which is what the 90's Seville/Eldorado were(see the Lexus ES for a good FWD luxury car). The thing was the 90's Northstar Cadillacs were not done right, they had many mechanical maladies, compounded by the fact that they were transverse FWD layouts and had one of the tightest engine bays I've ever seen. If Cadillac had built their cars to the same standard as a Toyota/Lexus, the FWD V8, tight engine bay thing wouldn't be a big deal, because you wouldn't constantly be working on them and changing head gaskets. Also Cadillac marketed the Seville STS as a "sports sedan" like the BMW 540i, when in fact it was clearly a comfort based type of car with a monster engine under the hood. Give the Northstar crap about reliability, but man they were great engines that loved to rev and had a lot of power for that era.

 

The all new for 95 Continental was also very nice. Older Continentals (which my dad also had) weren't as nice.

 

That Northstar power, though, in a transverse/FWD layout (which Sevilles had in the 1990s) led to complaints of torque-steer. Plus, Northstars, as the miles built up, tended to use a lot of oil.


Back to the interior, though, Steve had a point. It was extremely well-done for GM 90s-vintage, where most of their vehicles had not only acres of El Cheapo plastic and fit/finish that would be out of place even on a kid's toy, but certain Buick and Oldsmobile models (particularly the Olds 88 and 98) had row after row of virtually identical buttons on the dash that were an insult to human intelligence.



That, BTW, brings up an interesting exchange I had with the Oldsmobile reps, back in the 90s, at the D.C. Auto Show. I pointed out that nonsense on the dash to them, and a couple of them looked oddly at me and asked "What's wrong with it"? When I pointed out that a design like that was very difficult for someone to decipher while trying to keep one's eyes on the road (especially considering that big Buick and Olds vehicles were quite popular with seniors who often had weak eyesight and slow reflexes while trying to deal with confusing small buttons, they said "You're wrong....drivers won't have any problems with them. Our designers know what they're doing". I told them "Wait and see....you guys keep trying to sell designs like this, and this company's sales are going to dry up, and you just might go out of business." Well, basically, they laughed at me. Yet, less than two years later, the interior of the big Olds 88 and 98 models was in fact redesigned, and they replaced many of those buttons with a lesser number of rotary-dials and switches, which made it much easier to adjust things. Yet, by then, it was too late......Olds, in fact, DID go out of business. Even the new Aurora couldn't save them.

 

This thread is about interiors...why are you trying to turn it into an argument?

 

^ My grandma had one of those Olds 88's with that dash. Never did like that interior, but the light grey velour seats were NICE. I feel like that's the case with a lot of 70's/80's/90's GM interiors, the dash designs were kind of suspect, the plastics weren't that great, but man those power adjusted velour seats, some with pillow tops sure were awesome.

 

Yep, those cushy seats in older American iron sure did their job in the comfort department.....at least for the relatively sedate driving and cornering that those cars were designed for. And, even without side-bolsters, the high-friction coefficient of that velour-cloth gave you at least reasonable side-support if you overdid it in one of the corners (assuming you didn't plow right off the road LOL). You didn't slide all over them like you did the typical leather seats of that time. Still, for aggressive drivers, there is a reason why Recaro seats were developed.

 

I like the pre74 MGB interiors. Simplistic straight forward, about driving. The gauges are large and clear. The gear shift is in the perfect place, you are not reaching for it. I'm about the driving experience. I don't need lights, Bluetooth, a radio so loud I can't hear the car. The MGB just had it just right to me.

 

Later on, BMW more or less adopted the MG-style simple, circular, easy-to-read gauges that they became known for.

 

I'm a real stickler for interior material quality. I feel Mercedes has gotten it right in their recent sedans, especially the W222 S-class.

Porsche is making some solid interiors, the new Panamera sets the bar extremely high. It is both visually striking and solidly built with top-notch materials. My only gripe with Porsche is that they never put metal-finish buttons the way Mercedes has been doing.

I think BMW's most "interesting" interior was that in the E65 Bangle 7-series. Certainly more visually appealing than that of the outgoing F01 and the newest 7er.

My folks had a 2007 Audi A6 which was excellent. The crisp white ambient lighting beneath the door wood trim and foot wells was a very nice touch. Sure, looking at photos now that interior looks very "meh," but back then it was among the best.

I'm too young to have a lot of personal experience with cars before the '00s, so I can't speak much for them. I will say, however, that a lot of Mercedes aficionados like to rave about the interiors of the 80s and 90s Mercs compared to today's models. However, from looking at photos at least, those models all had plain black plastic buttons and infused plastic dashboards. Nowadays, the E and S class are offered with leather dashboards, and even the standard infused plastic dash is finished with a "grainy" texture and stitching. The buttons are also finished in metal. I see now way that one could say that Mercedes sedans don't have the best interiors they've had in generations.

 

I think its the build quality that people seem to be enamored with vs. material quality.

 

Very nice interiors and dash. This is the smooth, clean, organic, uncluttered shapes of the past that we should try to get back to. Today's nav screens have made that impossible.

 

I can't believe Cadillac followed up on the excellent 1998 STS with this Crapillac of an interior. Such a let down.

 

Looks okay to me. Clean lines, symmetry, and luxurious wood... What don't you like?