: V6 in a 93 Fleetwood???????



Greg Z
02-04-09, 07:00 PM
OK. My buddy has a 94 Fleetwood with the Lt1. He claims that they put a V6 in body style Fleetwood. I bet him that they didn't. Am I gonna lose my 2 dollars?????

billc83
02-04-09, 07:17 PM
Your two dollars is safe. '93 Fleetwoods were equipped with a 5.7L V-8 (same displacement as the LT-1, but less HP).

96Fleetwood
02-04-09, 07:42 PM
You win!

93DevilleUSMC
02-04-09, 08:31 PM
GM did not make a single V-6 in that era that could have even handled the weight of a Fleetwood. Enjoy your two dollars!

jayoldschool
02-04-09, 09:18 PM
If the bet is on that year ONLY, you win. If not, he wins. Check out the top left:
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=14305&g2_

90Brougham350
02-04-09, 10:54 PM
Maybe he's thinking of the L99, the 4.3 liter version of the LT-1. People do get those mixed up with the 4.3 V6 engines.....

Brian

dirt_cheap_fleetwood
02-05-09, 12:05 AM
^ Yeah that. It is like a mini LT1 and I have only seen one of them in my life.

Aron9000
02-05-09, 12:50 AM
^ Yeah that. It is like a mini LT1 and I have only seen one of them in my life.

They were standard on the 94-96 Caprice, replaced the 305 TBI V8. Usually found in granny-mobile optioned Caprices.

jey
02-06-09, 10:56 AM
GM did not make a single V-6 in that era that could have even handled the weight of a Fleetwood. Enjoy your two dollars!

What about the Supercharged 3800? That motor is a beast. But no, Cadillac stuck to the V8s in that era - I can't even imagine how slow that 4.1L Buick motor must be for 81-82. I guess they were desperate since the Cadillac V8-6-4 was a flop.

425 Dual Quad
02-06-09, 02:41 PM
Could you imagine how slow that would be?? i once had an 81 regal with a V6 and that was slow enough. But one in a D body - sure is safe slow comfortable cruisin'

jayoldschool
02-06-09, 06:06 PM
Another interesting footnote: that V6 in the ad I posted above got the first use of the overdrive 200-R4 trans. It wasn't strong enough for the diesel or the 368, so those still got TH400s. Once the 4100 arrived, they all got OD

90Brougham350
02-06-09, 10:08 PM
The V-6 '82 Coupe DeVille I test-drove about a year ago was one of the slowest cars I have ever driven. It was marginally punchy off the line, but felt doggish at pretty much any speed. It was about as fast as a 4100, maybe a little slower, but less smooth.

Brian

themadwacker1
02-07-09, 07:43 PM
I have seen the 4.3 liter V8 in RWD Fleetwood's. These were not Brougham's & were fleet cars used by an executive taxi company. 1993's silver/gray with some kind of pie-plate hubcaps.

jayoldschool
02-07-09, 08:36 PM
There was no 4.3 V8 in 1993. In ANY car. It didn't arrive until 1994, and was never available in the D body Cadillac. Its option code was L99 n the B body. In 1993, the old TBI 4.3 V6 was still available only in the B body Caprice with the 9C6 (taxi) package.

Of course, a taxi company could always swap in a motor. They didn't come from the factory like that, though.

themadwacker1
02-07-09, 10:46 PM
There was no 4.3 V8 in 1993. In ANY car. It didn't arrive until 1994, and was never available in the D body Cadillac. Its option code was L99 n the B body. In 1993, the old TBI 4.3 V6 was still available only in the B body Caprice with the 9C6 (taxi) package.

Of course, a taxi company could always swap in a motor. They didn't come from the factory like that, though.

Could have been 94's. I thought that because of the side mirrors. If the taxi company swapped out the engine, it must have done it to all 7 (just what I saw there) as I said "fleet of car's"

I~LUV~Caddys8792
02-08-09, 12:33 AM
In 1993, the old TBI 4.3 V6 was still available only in the B body Caprice with the 9C6 (taxi) package..

Seriously? I thought they discontinued the 4.3L V6 in the Caprices around '88 or so...


^ Yeah that. It is like a mini LT1 and I have only seen one of them in my life.


That motor is such a joke. My uncle has it in his '96 Caprice Classic, and it is SLOW! 200hp and 245 lb/ft. The 4.3L Vortec V6 makes more torque, the 3800 V6 makes more horsepower. Why they ever came out with that engine is beyond me.... Did someone complain that the LT1 was "too fast"??? :histeric:

N0DIH
02-08-09, 01:13 AM
Given a choice of a 4.1L V8 vs a 4.1L V6, I'll take the 4.1L V6.... At least the 3.8L turbo bolts on..... Or get the GN EFI turbo setup and go that route....

jayoldschool
02-08-09, 11:57 AM
Why they ever came out with that engine is beyond me.... Did someone complain that the LT1 was "too fast"???


Only reason was fuel economy. If they could have kept the corporate average up with all LT1s, they would have. Yes, the L99 wasn't that much better, but spread that couple of MPG over thousands of cars, and it makes sense.

N0DIH
02-08-09, 02:51 PM
If you follow the mpg of the FW/Brougham from say 80-up, they always progressively got better mpg. And oddly enough, power usually went up (ok, the HT4100, 4.1L V6 and 307 maybe not....) as mpg went up.

1985 HT4100 = 140 hp 15/20
1990 307 = 140 hp 15/22
1990 350 = 180 hp 13/20 (sorry Chevy...)
1992 350 = 180 hp (?) 15/23
1993 350 = 180 hp (?) 15/23
1994 350 = 260 hp 15/23

In comparison
1994 Caprice 4.3L V8 200 hp 16/24 mpg
(these are the new EPA ratings)

CadillacSTS42005
02-08-09, 06:12 PM
they put the V6 in the Caprice didnt they?
wouldnt be much slower than that...

N0DIH
02-08-09, 08:39 PM
Yup, they did in the boxy days, 4.3L V6 (160hp IIRC). Not sure if the last gen body got a V6 or not. I didn't think they did, but I haven't looked closely at all.

Aron9000
02-08-09, 11:06 PM
If you follow the mpg of the FW/Brougham from say 80-up, they always progressively got better mpg. And oddly enough, power usually went up (ok, the HT4100, 4.1L V6 and 307 maybe not....) as mpg went up.

1985 HT4100 = 140 hp 15/20
1990 307 = 140 hp 15/22
1990 350 = 180 hp 13/20 (sorry Chevy...)
1992 350 = 180 hp (?) 15/23
1993 350 = 180 hp (?) 15/23
1994 350 = 260 hp 15/23

In comparison
1994 Caprice 4.3L V8 200 hp 16/24 mpg
(these are the new EPA ratings)

^I've been getting a lot better mileage than the epa in my 91 Brougham with the 350. 18mpg average, driving a 50 city/50 highway mix. And I have a pretty damn heavy right foot. Got 23.5mpg doing 80mph on a road trip, slowed down to 70 and got 25mpg.

People ask me all the time how bad is that gas mileage. I guess they think it gets like 10mpg, they are kind of shocked when I tell them that it gets better mpgs than any medium sized or large suv.

N0DIH
02-09-09, 12:17 AM
My 94 Fleetwood never got over 22 a day in its life since I have had it. Mine is a tow pack car ( I suspect trans mods from factory hurt it), with 3.42's and even with 3.08's in now, no change, but never once lower than 16 on gas, on E85, 13. But I have heard of lots of people with lower too, and MANY with significantly higher than mine highway. Like 96Fleetwood, he has got mid 20's highway regularly.

Cadillacboy
02-16-09, 12:31 PM
I believe V4P packages get slightly decreased MPG though .

N0DIH
02-16-09, 04:31 PM
Yup.... 3.42's and the tweaked 4L60E, I have never got mine over 22 mpg. But even wth 3.08's, still can't. My guess is trans. I still want to pull the cats, always wondered if they were bad....

caddeville89
02-20-09, 06:55 AM
I had a 2000 LeSabre with the 3.8L V6, and that thing could haul serious tushkey! Though still a heavy car, it weighs about 900lbs. less than a '90 FWB. It would be interesting to see that motor in one of the FWD DeVille's or something. Those 4.5's were plagued with head gasket problems.

Aron9000
02-20-09, 05:51 PM
I had a 2000 LeSabre with the 3.8L V6, and that thing could haul serious tushkey! Though still a heavy car, it weighs about 900lbs. less than a '90 FWB. It would be interesting to see that motor in one of the FWD DeVille's or something. Those 4.5's were plagued with head gasket problems.

The 4.5 V8, along with the very similar 4.9 V8 were actually very reliable. You are thinking of the 4.6 Northstar V8 that blows headgaskets, along with the crappy HT4100 V8.

caddeville89
02-21-09, 08:02 AM
The 4.5 V8, along with the very similar 4.9 V8 were actually very reliable. You are thinking of the 4.6 Northstar V8 that blows headgaskets, along with the crappy HT4100 V8.

:rant2:Nope, I had three 4.5's myself, in an '89 and '90 Sedan DeVille, and I went through a total of 3 head gaskets. I have talked to several mechanics who said that they were infamous for blowing them. I mean, don't get me wrong, they seem like decent engines; very peppy, but they were very hard to work on and as I mentioned I went through 3 headgaskets.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
02-21-09, 09:10 AM
That's odd. I've never heard anyone else going thru headgaskets that frequently on a 4.5...

GenrlRodes
03-02-09, 08:45 PM
I can't even imagine how slow that 4.1L Buick motor must be for 81-82. I guess they were desperate since the Cadillac V8-6-4 was a flop.

I completely forgot about that. I test drove a dark brown 1982 DeVille D'Elegance once with the 4.1 Buick V6. It was a beautiful car. Nothing wrong with it other then you better plan extra time getting around the hills of Western Pennsylvania with it. I could have bought that for around $800.

drmenard
03-02-09, 10:46 PM
If the 4-6-8 was a flop... what was the 4100? I would never want another 4100, not for free... had 2 368's that never failed me...

GenrlRodes
03-02-09, 11:20 PM
If the 4-6-8 was a flop... what was the 4100? I would never want another 4100, not for free... had 2 368's that never failed me...

I can not really speak for myself, as I never have owned a Cadillac with either engine. However, I have test drove a variety of Cadillacs with the imfamous 4100 engine. Everthing from the 1986 Fleetwood 75,1985, 1986 & 1987 DeVilles, 1987 Fleetwoods, 1982, 1984 & 1985 Fleetwood Broughams, 1984 Seville & 1984 Eldorado, plus some others I am sure. They all were poor performance in my opinion. From the reports of others whom have owned them with the problems, I'd have to be desperate to purchase one. I am sure there are those who have had flawless experiences, I'd count yourself fortunate.

As for the 8-6-4, I never drove one, saw several. One elderly gentleman from Ohio had one. 70,xxx miles and never an issue. Always worked like a clock. I am sure a lot could depend upon your terrain for a setup like that. Here in Iowa where it is flat, one might function as designed, but in PA where I am from, that computer would get so mixed up trying to select the proper firing, it'd go crazy...