: '91 d'Elegance vs. '96 FWB



avemaria
06-06-09, 05:43 PM
Hey all,

What's your take on these two models?

1. Which is quieter, '91 or '96?

2. Which has the more comfortable seats?

3. Legroom?

4. Handling?

I've got a '96 but I'm looking at a '91 with the 305 TBI engine, I know it's smaller but how does it perform in comparison to the LTI?

Thanks as always,

Lou

dirt_cheap_fleetwood
06-07-09, 03:58 AM
The 305 is about 100 hp less than the LT1 so it will be much slower. The car will also handle like a Mack truck.

Performance and handling were greatly improved on the last gen Fleetwoods, but you lost comfort. IMO, the older ones are more comfortable. For one they at least have some front leg room. I don't know if you have ever noticed but your Fleetwood has very little front leg room considering how large the car is. Its very disappointing and the only reason why I do not own one (I am 6'4"). The seats in the older ones do not have lumbar, so most people say the last gen ones have better seats but I just drove my car 600 miles to Missouri and I beg to differ.

96Fleetwood
06-07-09, 10:17 AM
Let's see... I have owned 4 '90-92 Broughams and 4 '93-96 Fleetwood Broughams.

1. Which is quieter, '91 or '96?

1996 is quieter. The mechanical fan on the TBI motors is insanely loud, especially on cold start up. I always found wind noise at highway speed to be horrible on the '90-92 models as well.


2. Which has the more comfortable seats?

1996 has the most comfortable seats IMO... but only if it is a Brougham package car. The d'elegance seats are nice, but as they age.. the leather "pillow" style button seats tend to harden.


3. Legroom?

Front or rear? Front legroom is sacrificed for rear legroom in the 1996.


4. Handling?

Depends which suspension package the cars have.. but either way the handling is not a strong point of these cars.


As a daily driver, a LT1 car is more fuel efficient and provides adequate power. I consider the '90-92 models to be nice weekend cruisers that keep the classic cadillac feel. I would not consider a '90-92 unless it had the 350 TBI motor.

90Brougham350
06-07-09, 10:28 AM
Elias is right on. My 90 was very noisy on the highway. The way the A-pillar meets the doors provides for a lotta wind. The 93-96 was redesigned to be extremely aerodynamic compared to previous generations. And the mechanical fan is loud. No getting around it.

From the mid 80's until '92, the Fleetwood / Brougham seats were not as comfortable as the 93-96, or as the 80 - mid 80's models. I don't know exactly when the switch occured, I'm guessing probably 85, but the seats have less cushion, it feels like they're missing 2 inches of padding compared to earlier models. The 93-96 seats are wonderful, because of their split design. They're still flat, however, so you don't exactly stay glued in place under hard handling.

The legroom in the 93-96 was 43.9 inches (IIRC), enough to give Cadillac the ability to market those cars as having the most spacious interior of any car built from 93-96. I'd have to look at my 94 brochure to get the exact wording. But yes, front legroom definitely suffered. My best friend of 6'7". I ended up taking the seat out and putting 4" extensions on the feet so he could right in there. I'm 6'1", and the seat was all the way back where I could make it comfortable. Any taller and I think I would have had problems.

Handling? No question, 93-96 all the way.

Brian

drmenard
06-07-09, 11:33 AM
The only thing I like better on the 91 is the look... the 96 beats it on everything else....even gas mileage...

dirt_cheap_fleetwood
06-07-09, 12:49 PM
Yeah, I forgot about wind noise on the older ones. Its really bad on the highway. I think the biggest culprit is the mirrors. There is the gap between the mirror and the window which allows for lots of air to squirrel through there.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
06-07-09, 08:51 PM
The 1991 looks a lot better (I think it's the best looking Cadillac sedan ever. Classy, sophisticated, unashamed of it's size and unabashedly American). The newer ones are a lot more aerodynamic, which makes them a lot quieter, but they lack the presence of the 1977-92 models. The interior on the 1991 looks a lot better IMO...more luxurious, over the top and "old school". I love all the faux wood trim, chrome and leather. The newer ones are just so...."Corporate GM"....lots less wood trim and chrome, more hard, flat surfaces, etc etc. My biggest pet peeve about the 1993-96 Fleetwoods is the HUGE dashboard. It's tremendously long, tall and completely flat. Now I'm only 5'6", so it doesn't matter to me that it intrudes greatly on legroom, but it's just plain weird looking.

Other than that, I'd imagine that the 93-96 BROUGHAM would have the more comfortable seats. They're awfully soft, wide and supportive (three way lumbar on the 93 & 94's), plus I'd imagine there was a great deal of advances made in the seating industry between 1987 and 1993 ('87 was the year they changed the seat design on the base Broughams, Brian). So it's probably orthopedically better in the newest models. Plus, the seats in the 93-96 BROUGHAMS were heated, as standard, no matter if you had cloth or leather. That's pretty cool. And the center armrest is much wider (very wide actually) in the 93-96's, with much more storage space than the 1990-92's.

The TBI 5.0 musters up 170hp and 255 lb/ft of torque, the LT1 boasts 260hp and 330 lb/ft. The '96 will run a mid 15 second 1/4 mile, the '91 with the TBI 5.0 would probably run a low 18. (I have a road test of a 1991 B D'Ele with the 5.7, and it runs a 17.1 in the quarter mile). So the LT1 is MUCH faster.


So for me, all together, I'd go with the 1996. Even though it lacks the vintage Cadillac look and feel, it's much more modern, FASTER, quieter and more comfortable.

robb257731
06-08-09, 11:01 AM
Seat comfort on the 90-92 Brougham D'Elegance depends hugely on whether it's leather or velour. I have a 92 with velour and a 91 with leather, and the 91 is far more comfortable. The reason is that the leather seats allow your body to slide around a bit, whereas clothing sticks to the velour like velcro. I also find the 92 doesn't have enough lumbar support. Just my opinion, others may vary. Then again, maybe my 92 was owned by a 400lb driver who flattened out the seats?

mjs182004
06-09-09, 10:54 AM
there's some good info above that you guys mentioned. my opinion is only one sided because ive never driven or owned a 93-96 FB. I absolutely love my seats in my 91. I have the cloth seats in my d' Elegance. and as for the ride, you can't beat an air ride suspension in a Cadillac. but I'm sure that the newer ones have better handling and more power, as with anything. things usually get better over time.