Cadillac or competing brand model ? Why ? Discussion, 93-96 RWD Fleet vs 94-99 Deville in Item Specific Cadillac Discussion; Ok lets comapre them inside cadillac ......
First let me tell you how this came about .....
Stoped by Ed ...
Stoped by Ed Morse last thursday to pickup a new trunk relese solenoid ...On the way out i swung over to the used car area to check out a couple fleets they had (95 ,96).....Boath very nice , and i sat in one and looked around me , sitting in the front it feels as if the fleetwood is smaller inside than my 94 deville , espically when it comes to shoulder room . My shoulders and head felt as if they were wicked close to the B pillar . Its does have a much higher seating position (probably because its a body on frame car) and the seats are much more confortable...and of coarse THAT TRUNK!!!!!But sitting in the drivers seat the only clue this is bigger than a deville is the view towards the rear , theres a bit more back there ...But front seat passenger room looks to be the same if not smaller ...
So how do they stack up on room up front ? ie shoulde room measuremants head room leg room?
How about rear ?
Then bone stock performace ? like 94 Base Deville vs 93 Fleet
96 Concourse vs 96 fleet LT1 ? or even base 96 vs LT1 Fleet
I know deville is trumped on towing capacity , aftermarket , potential and trunkspace , just curious on what the beatter car is for the driver when its bone stock....
hmm , well we can use those but we cannt comapre those two , as the fleet a year later got the lt1 ...but thats a good start !!!
need to get numbers from the 95,96 fleet and comapre that against the northsar deville , then compare the 4.9 deville against the TBI fleets
93 fleet from autoweek 2/8/93 -
base price $33,990
wheel base 121.5
length/width : 225.1/78.0
curb weight: 4418
power : 185hp/300lb ft
0-60 : 10.5 - dave where did your number come from ?
16 mpg with a range of 368.0 miles
besides the base price, what was price as tested for the 93? 96's were 40k. ive sat in Devilles and to me it felt like i was cramped. in my Fleetwood i feel like i have all the room in the world except head room, the Deville had it on that. but other than that the two are completely different in ride feel and size. the Deville felt smaller and my Fleetwood was huge and the Fleetwood has a boatier feel when cruising down the road, the Deville felt tighter. it was a 99 Deville i drove, i dont know what the interior room difference is if any between 94 and 99 and how the suspension is.
For speed, 96 Fleetwood's, depending on the package, can run from a 16.4 (Mine with the 2.56 rear end) to as low as probably a 15.0 on the 3.42 rear end. I came off a 97 Eldorado and in my 96 Fleetwood now. Those two are too far apart to be compared though.
Though both are good cars, the Fleetwood is definitely the better car in many ways.
To start off, the Fleetwood is longer, wider, and heavier than the Deville. Some might not consider this good, but for the true Cadillac enthusiast, the size is directly proportional to the class and prestige of the vehicle. The Fleetwood is a true full-sized luxury car and doesn't cheap out in size like the Deville. The exterior design of the Fleetwood is also superior to the Deville. The Fleetwood has a bigger grille, chrome bumpers, and chrome trim panels, as opposed to the Deville's painted plastic bumpers and relatively austere door trim. Fleetwoods also had a chrome strip along where pinstripes are often put. Fleetwoods are more likely to be seen with a customized rooftop (like vinyl or cloth), which improves the look and status of the vehicle. The ornamentation (though reduced in general from Cadillacs of the past) is a little better on the Fleetwood, like, for example, the emblem covering over the trunk keyhole and the sail panel trim. The Deville also has a stubby tail-end, which I think is less becoming on a vehicle than the longer tail-end sported by the Fleetwood. The Deville's body, though still attractive overall, suffers in general from a swelled, tubby, child-bearing look - a result of the more rounded and aerodynamic designs trends of the 1990s - which is not as severe on the Fleetwood. All Fleetwoods also had chrome-trimmed, rounded rectangular front wheel wells and rear-wheel fender skirting, which were classic Cadillac standards of beauty. The 1994-1996 Devilles had the more rectangular wheel wells and skirting, but lacked the chrome, and the 1997-1999 Deville's got rid of both, making the car appear even less ritzy than its younger counterpart (though 97-99, in my opinion, had a superior grille to 94-96). In visual beauty and presence, the Fleetwood takes out the Deville.
Interior-wise, the Fleetwood is also superior, though the Deville does win some points. The interior of the Fleetwood is bigger and more roomy (with the only exception being front headroom), especially in the width department (six people can sit more comfortably in the Fleetwood than in the Deville). The front seats are more comfortable and sit up higher and the rear seat is bigger and looks more luxurious. The Fleetwood dashboard is flat, bold, and symmetrical, as opposed to the smaller dashboard of the Deville with the lopsided bubble on the driver's side which is typical of less-prominent vehicles. The Fleetwoods have fiber optic interior light indicator which are absent on at least later Devilles. Two notable things on the Deville are its more traditional-placed and larger glove compartment and its driver display panel, which will easily display information like RPMs, engine temperature, and charge. The Fleetwood can do this, but only through the computer diagnostic mode and not at the touch of a button like the Deville. The windshield of the Fleetwood is a little excessive in angle and length, but it also serves to give the interior an even bigger feel, so it is questionable whether the Deville's more conservative windshield is better overall, though it is a little less excessive. Overall both vehicles have interiors that seem a bit cheaper in quality than Cadillacs of the past, but the Fleetwood's interior feels a bit higher quality than the Deville's. Little things, like the radio and turn signal levers feel cheaper in the Deville. Trunk space in the Fleetwood is superior to that of the Deville, and a number of Fleetwoods came with a full-sized spare, as opposed to the donut all Devilles have.
The ride of both cars are very nice and comfortable, and nearly equal, but, once again, the Fleetwood has a slight edge in my opinion. The Fleetwood rides on bigger tires and has more weight, which contributes to a little less jolt from bumps. The Fleetwood also has a body on frame design not shared by the Deville, which, in my experience, gives more of a solid feel. The weight distribution is also better. I must admit, though, I am nitpicking, since both cars have an extraordinary ride. Cornering is a little better on the Deville due to its smaller size, and handling is about equal on both. Turning is less cumbersome on the Deville, but the Fleetwood is more responsive. The Fleetwood, due to its superior size, has a little more of a commanding and cushy ride, so I have to give overall ride to the Fleetwood. The Fleetwood in my opinion, due to its size, is more fun to drive and turns more heads. The Fleetwood definitely gets more comments from people.
Mechanically things are interesting, but overall I feel this category goes to the Fleetwood as well. Fleetwoods are rear-wheel drive, which in my opinion is better because: Rear-wheel drive distributes the cars weight more evenly, it gives a tighter, more responsive pedal feel (as opposed to the spongy pedal you get from front-wheel) and the physics of it make more sense in that when you accelerate in any car the weight shifts to the rear, which with rear-wheel drive improves traction. Though the 1993 Fleetwood engine wasn't anything special, the 1994-1996 Fleetwoods had the Corvette-derived 5.7L LT1 engine, which is considered by many to be one of GM's best and most-reliable engines. The 4.9L engine of eariler Devilles is a fine engine, but not nearly as powerful as the LT1. The Northstar engine of the later models is a better match in power, but isn't as reliable of an engine over the long haul. The Northstar beats the LT1 in horsepower, but the LT1 wins in torque. Having driven both, the LT1 seems a bit faster at lower speeds, and the Northstar a bit faster at higher speeds, but there isn't really any major difference. Also note that the LT1 engine is more customizable, and its potential for more horsepower exceeds that of the Northstar. Besides being a bigger (5.7L vs 4.9L or 4.6L) and more customizable engine, the LT1 engine is cast iron, not aluminum like the Deville engines. The area under the hood of a Fleetwood is much less crowded and makes working under the hood a lot easier. The transverse engine of the Deville makes poor use of precious space and makes working under the hood a nightmare for many tasks. Both cars are reliable, but in my own experience and in reading the experiences of others, I feel that Fleetwoods are in general more reliable, encounter fewer problems, and cost the owner less in repair bills. (Please note in regards to the above, I've never driven a Concours, so my experience above is with the standard Northstar.)
There is more, but I've made my main points, and this is long-winded enough in comparison to other replies. As a final remark, the Fleetwood was GM's and Cadillac's flagship vehicle until it was discontinued in 1996. The Deville became the flagship after that, but by default and not by virtue of its comparison with the Fleetwood. The Fleetwood was more expensive, and more exclusively owned. The Fleetwood was referred to as the "Cadillac of Cadillacs", so it really isn't so surprising that the Fleetwood, Cadillac's top-of-the-line model, edges out its lesser-endowed, more affordable sibling, the Deville. The Fleetwood should be superior to the Deville by virtue of its purpose as flagship, and it is superior, hands down, in the mind of this reviewer and most classic Cadillac enthusiasts.
Stock, the 1994-1996 Fleetwood is bland and boring IMO.
Modified.... you can create the ultimate sleeper.
Please do not confuse the 1993 models with the '94-96. They had the L05 instead of the LT-1, which had 75 less horsepower.
When my brother had a 2003 DTS and now a 2002 STS and both of those cars could not keep up with my Fleetwood from 0-80mph (had to shut it down at 80, afraid of legal consequenses). Granted, my car is modified and his were stock.
Well, since it seems like some people are reading this, I'll throw in a bit more. First off, in the engine deparment, the LT1 beats both the 4.9 and Northstar in towing capacity. The LT1 actually beats a good amount of trucks in this department, as well.
In the gas mileage department, both vehicles get the same gas mileage, but the Fleetwood requires only 87 octane where both the 4.9 and the Northstar require at least 91 (which is harder to find, so you often have to go with 93), so the Fleetwood is actually cheaper to run in fuel (not that fuel economy is the chief concern of a Cadillac owner anyway, but every little bit helps). In addition, the fuel cap is behind the license plate on the Fleetwood, as opposed to being on the driver's side of the car on the Deville. Not only does this make fueling a lot easier since you can fuel up with the pump on either side of your vehicle, but it helps aesthetically by removing the fuel door cutout from the side of your car. I see no modern cars with the fuel cap in the back like the Fleetwood, so it is a real treat to be able to take any pump while watching others have to wait behind cars to get gas so they can be oriented on the right side of the pump.
To be fair, I should also mention something important that is, in fact, superior on the Deville, and that is that the Deville has all-wheel disc brakes, which is quite nice. The Fleetwood has rear drum brakes, and such a heavy car could have used the improved braking power of all-wheel disc brakes, not to mention their lower cost to fix.
Then braking distance is not as short as Deville ,right ? If so is there a way to convert rear brakes to disc ? When I first heard that I wouldn't believe it had rear drums as it stated
BTW-Thanks for your invaluable inputs !
The FWB 93-96 was 225.1 inches long. That's almost 19 feet. I'm in a pre-war building, so it would fit in my living room and master bedroom, but that's about 4 feet bigger than a nice sized living room in a house built in 1993. Most of my friends couldn't put it in their living room, and when I parked in those neighborhoods in Queens, NY where there were "decent" houses, the damned car was longer than the houses were wide! Amazing!
Who got what wrong? Detroit, or the builders? Loved that car, love my apartment....forced to choose one in "perfect" condition...the pimpy maroon FWB with a gold kit and a banging system...2 bedroom 1400 square feet 12 foot ceilings.....hmmm......
The winner? The Fleetwood! Friends from all over said, "Beautiful apartment, oh my God, I love it" but ALL my friends from abroad took pictures of themselves in and on the car like Japanese tourists to show back in Europe, Asia, and South America.
Talk about anything America did wrong or right, what the president is lying about or sleeping with, how we're fat and lazy, but G-D, the USA is the only country that got big cars RIGHT!!!
Automobile(s): 1992 Town Car Cartier & 2014 Accord LX MTX
Re: 93-96 RWD Fleet vs 94-99 Deville
That brings up another interesting point. Would a 93-96 Fleetwood fit in a modern garage? Two-Hundred-And-Twenty-Five inches is a lot of car to put in a garage. I thought I heard somewhere that some people were having trouble getting them to fit in their garage.