Let's talk about this.. Who's got better what and how? By the end of this thread, I'd like a good topic all about how both cars are the same and different at the same time - and which one is better and why...

Bad example. The '96 Town Car was the last year before they switched to the current body style.
'96 Town Car vs. Fleetwood would be a slam-dunk for the Fleetwood. It was the culmination of all the changes to the car. It would be the best it would ever be. The Caddy was bigger in every dimension, faster, better towing package, higher GVW. Just plain better from bumper to bumper. The '97 Town Car was a MUCH better car but was slightly smaller in certain dimensions.

Thank you for the input. I hope to have much more in the coming days.. Just an FYI.. The 95-97 TC's were virtually identical.. The '98 started the newer model which you see now - mostly unchanged since inception...

Thank you for the input. I hope to have much more in the coming days.. Just an FYI.. The 95-97 TC's were virtually identical.. The '98 started the newer model which you see now - mostly unchanged since inception...

Sorry dude. I can never remember whether '97 was the last of the old style or the first of the new :rolleyes:

I really like the newer style Town Car. It rode nice, handled surprisingly well at speed, and had a nice clean exterior look. I think the interior was rather bland but what the hell. They had a "Touring Sedan" version that looked even better but two things turned me off to it:
1. No additional power. A Touring Sedan model SHOULD be a little more powerful.
2. The "sport" version tires and springs combined to make a lousy riding car if you can believe it.
I think I would go with the Cartier version (at least I think that was what they called it). It was the top of the line version and I would probably do some performance upgrades to make it a "proper" car.
The Town Car actually had it all except the two things that meant a lot to me. Interior styling and performance.

What really has me shocked is that the Fleetwood rides smoother than the Towncar.. That's what the Towncar guys say, anyway.. How much smoother does the Fleetwood ride than the DeVille?

*off topic real quick*

when we were in Washington DC, going from our hotel to the trian station, we took a cab, the cab was a mid 90's Town Car, the older style, but it had the air bag suspension..... I must say, that car rode really smooth, I was really surprised.....

....in DC, there were sooo many differnt cabs, from 70's Chevy station wagons and old Caprices, to 80's trucks, and early SUV's and bigger cars, and a ton of stuff from the 90's from Cavi's to Towncars, DeVilles, anything, but the one single cab that stuck out in my head was the '78 Sedan DeVille with the 425, the car was banged up and stuff, but it was still running, and running strong, and you could really hear the 425 roar when the driver that could barley speak English hit the loud pedal.

Actually, it's always been my experience that the Town Car rode smoother than the Cadillac but, the soft suspension tuning worked against the durability of the vehicle as a whole. It was always considered common knowledge in the livery industry that the Lincolns rode nicer than the Cadillacs but the Cadillacs lasted longer.
And as for the Lincoln air-bag rear suspension, I'd have to admit that overall it's a more substantial assembly than the air-shocks on the Cadillacs. The only problem was that if there was an air system related problem, the car was undriveable whereas the Cadillac just didn't have quite the same load carrying capacity when their air system was down.

Well.. I originally wanted to get back into an Eldorado.. Then I thought a Seville would be better since it's bigger.. Then I figured a DeVille would be even better for its size.. And now I've been studying up on the Fleetwood - and I'm liking what I'm learning. I'm mostly attracted to the soft ride and interior room.. So, I'll be on the search for a nice '93 Fleetwood as soon as my Vette goes.. I have a bad feeling I'm going to have a hell of a hard time finding one...

I don't want the LT1. I have a Vette now. I just don't care for speed anymore. Comfort rules all. And, I want a cheap engine to maintain. If I need to replace it - I don't want to replace it with an LT1...

Well.. I originally wanted to get back into an Eldorado.. Then I thought a Seville would be better since it's bigger.. Then I figured a DeVille would be even better for its size.. And now I've been studying up on the Fleetwood - and I'm liking what I'm learning. I'm mostly attracted to the soft ride and interior room.. So, I'll be on the search for a nice '93 Fleetwood as soon as my Vette goes.. I have a bad feeling I'm going to have a hell of a hard time finding one...

I don't want the LT1. I have a Vette now. I just don't care for speed anymore. Comfort rules all. And, I want a cheap engine to maintain. If I need to replace it - I don't want to replace it with an LT1...

You have me stunned Sal. I've never known anyone that "purposely" chose a LO5 equipped Fleetwood over the LT1 equipped one. IMO, there ARE enough improvements between the '93 and '94 (besides the engine) to warrant looking for the later model but, to each his own.
If nothing else, the resale value is far better for the '94-'96 cars :rolleyes:

Well. I'm looking for 'no car payment' without spending a lot of cash...

Anyways.. How difficult will it be to get new seats and carpet in these things? Where can I go for replacement parts? Is anything still around for these cars?

There's a few upholstry wholesalers like Katskin's that MAY still offer something. Other than that, I'd have to say you're stuck with a local upholsterer. Do you get Automotive News? There's plenty of ads in there.

Most of the interior pieces that you'll need to replace i.e. seat covers, carpet, etc... have been discontinued from the factory. There's a Cat on the Impala board that can get you a full carpet kit for the Fleetwood for a modest price. Good quality too. I've heard nothing but good things about his service. His name's Smokeybear. If you head over there and ask around someone can throw you his email at least. As far as seat covers, you may have to raid some junk yards and hope you get lucky. Allthough there's always JC Whitney :D .

As for the ride issue. There was a line in Consumer reports that has stuck with me for years about the Fleetwood. They said the ride on the 94-96's was a bit stiffer from the last generation FW's. I was lucky enough to own both generations at the same time so I did notice the 80's FW was a bit softer over the rough stuff then the 90's. It's marginal though. And when you set a car that's barley broken in against a car that's had 200k hard miles thrown at it the results may come back a bit skewed :D . Then again I'm probablly not the best advocate for supurb ride comfort. I build cars that lay on the frame and have 4 inches of usable travle :banghead2 .

check out the '90-'92 Brougham too for an older style.....or even '87-'89 if you want a cheap, reliable ride that will never die, very comfortable but lacking on the power.....

I do like those older styles as well - but - I'd like something that can still look kinda NEW and be very BIG. I don't really need such a big car but the Fleetwood is really growing on me. I know they ride nice - they're looking better and better - and they're not a dime a dozen...

If I can find a nice '95 with the bigger mirrors (and further forward), I'll go for it. But, I'll be satisfied with the '93 as well.. I just know it's going to be very difficult to find one...

When I was looking for mine I test drove a 93 first and then drove a 96 a couple months later. Honestly, I didn't notice that big a difference in power. If anything the LT1 has better throttle responce over the L05. The L05 will get out of its own way though. It lacks a bit on the upper end of the RPM's, but the Torque ratings are very close. If I was to do it all over again, with what I know now and the amount of money and work I dropped into my LT1 I wouldn't buy another. The engine and tranny are too exspensive to fix and have too many quirks. As much as I loved that car, it also jaded me. It'll be a long time befor I buy another fuel injected car. Especially one of those. The L05 is simple. It'll take standard SBC parts from off the shelf pretty much. So no $500 distributors or $300 water pumps to have to worry about. You can take the money you saved on those and buy the later model mirriors and update that :D

I think the biggest difference in ride quality that you will notice right away is the "isolation" that a body-on-frame gives you. You're used to a unibody car and they will never approach the level of isolation that you'll get out of a full-frame car like the Fleetwood.

Scrapyard - thanks for that info. Very interesting.. The LT1 was pretty well-known for high RPM power.. So I guess that WOULD be the biggest difference. But, it sounds like I could save a lot of money down the road if I just get the L05.. Hell, if I ever really wanted to, I could probably put in an stroker...

But.. CAN I update the mirrors on the '93? If they're farther up forward - is that difficult to change? You can't just take the mirrors off and move 'em up cleanly - can you?

Otherwise.. Regarding the isolation.. You're right, Kevin.. I know very little about it.. Why is it such a difference? I don't understand the whole "full-frame" deal...

Oh, and another question.. Heated seats.. They only come on the Brougham. Right? Damn. Now my search will be that much more difficult.. What OTHER features are added on the Brougham? And... Can they be ADDED to the regular Fleetwood later on?

Sal...... Adding heated seats to a non brougham wouldnt be a feasable option, unless you have to get the seats recovered......... All the labor involved (the heaters are only about 100) is taking the seats out, and getting the seat covers off....

The mirror update will require some body and paint work but otherwise it's a mater of getting mirriors off a 95-96 model with the window mounting plates, rerouting the wiring for the power mirriors and bolting it in. The 93-94 models have the plastic triangle piece in the front corner of the window all ready where the later model mirriors mount. The thing is, when you pull the mirriors off the doors there is a 4" x 3" hole that needs to be welded up and repainted. That's where the bulk of the exspense is gona come from unless you are pretty proficent with a welder and a spray gun or know someone that is.

As for the Brougham options/updates. You're probablly gona have an easier time finding a Brougham then you think. When I found my base Fleetwood without the vinal roof and more wood then Pergament (you're from Lindhurst you should know what that is ;) ) I was amazed. Plus, I would guess the heated seat option would be pretty popular up there. And if it's not, there should be a loose plug under the seat for it already. There was in mine anyway.

Hmm. The mirrors sound like a pain. I wouldn't do that myself. I wonder what that would end up costing me altogether.. $1000 with paint? Then the heated seats.. Hmm.. I wonder how good an upholsterer could get new leather on the seats and I wonder what THAT would cost.. Probably $1500.00...

Maybe I should just make payments and look for something in the area of $8000 or $9000 and go for the '95...

Sal,
I just test drove this 95' Fleetwood, wait until you drive one of these cars Sal > You are going to fall in love with it. I haven't driven a car that compares to it's Ride, it blows my 87' away, The Fleetwood is Total LUXURY, the car handled very well and everything worked on it! I took it out on the highway and drove it about 20 miles, every time i looked at the digital speedo i was doing almost 80 mph so i had to set the cruise at 65mph and leave it. Sal, just take one for a drive and see for yourself > You won't be sorry i promise. Here are some Production numbers for you to get an idea of how many were made, the 93's should be plentifull compared to the 94' thu 96's "I have Seen the Light"

1993 Cadillac Produced 29,744

1994 Production dropped to 23,177

1995 Production dropped to 13,445

1996 Production dropped to 12,596

mmmm, RWD!

The 95 is the best year to come by..... best reliability (because the 96s GM kinda slacked off), the new mirrors, and pre obdII........

Recovering ALL the seats would be about 1000 including labor.......

Basically at the trim shop im going to goto to get the Q done, its 175 for one section of the seats (ie seat bottom, seat back), so i just multiplied that by 4, and then gave some leway for labor charges......

Thanks Mike and Wes. I can see why there's such a drastic change in price during the last few years. The cars are rare... I'm definitely going to get the best model I can get. But, if that happens to be a '93 in clean condition - I'm sure I'll be happy...

$1000.00 wouldn't be the end of the world for all new leather seats.. Now I just have to hope the cushion/foam will be okay.. I guess that would be kind of impossible to replace correctly. But, I'm pretty sure mostly older guys owned these cars - so they're probably well-maintained.

The other thing I have to worry about is the dash. I hear they're practically all cracked... Where exactly do they tend to crack? How would you go about replacing one of 'em? Junk yard?

Trying to build a Brougham from a base model is unwise. It would cost way more than the difference in the car's average price when they were new, let alone now in the resale value market.

True... I guess I will have to see what I run into once I sell my car.. It looks like a decent '95 Brougham will cost around $10k...

I was looking for a 2000-2002 DeVille.

Now I'm seriously considering a Fleetwood. Now that the wife has a Z3 and a Volvo, it's probably a good idea to spend a little less anyway.

I'll have to go on a nation-wide search, pay an independent inspector, and then pay for shipping, but if the right one comes along, it might be worth it.

Why don't you try looking for yours AFTER I get mine. :D

More FOSS members!!!!!
I knew you guys would finally come around and see the light ;)

I'm drooling over what this car could be without all the hydraulics... (no offense meant if the owner is a member here)

http://www.cardomain.com/member_pages/view_page.pl?page_id=160528&make_type_query=make%3DCadillac&model_brand_query=model%3DFleetwood&tree=Cadillac%20Fleetwood

I've done the nationwide search, Sal. Not much out there right now under 60,000 miles. I may have to buddy up with some dealerships. There's a good one in Phoenix that ships for free.

Wow. That's a nice black Fleetwood.. Otherwise, mileage isn't really ALL that important to me. I'd be very happy with a '95 with 100,000 miles...

$1000.00 wouldn't be the end of the world for all new leather seats.. Now I just have to hope the cushion/foam will be okay.. I guess that would be kind of impossible to replace correctly. But, I'm pretty sure mostly older guys owned these cars - so they're probably well-maintained.

The other thing I have to worry about is the dash. I hear they're practically all cracked... Where exactly do they tend to crack? How would you go about replacing one of 'em? Junk yard?

SAL > The 95' I found was a one owner, it was garage kept, the interior is perfect, the dash is perfect and so are the seats> it still looks new inside and smells like leather, the owner never smoked in it, the car has 118k but was serviced regular, so just be paitent and keep looking and you will find them, they are out there but you have to really look for them, i will also keep an eye out for a nice clean one for you too! and by the way mine started out at $7995.00 then it dropped to 6995.00 then to 6495.00 but the owner is standing firm on the last figure, i really can't blame him as he paid 37k for it new.

MORE POSSIBLE FOSS MEMBERS SEEING THE LIGHT.......

I think you could find a good 95 brougham for less than 10k........
Oh no, its happening again............ I am feeling...... a little...... verclemft!!!

This is HotRodSaints 96' Fleetwood >CLEAN<
I like the Original look better...

Gotta love that body style.

You guys suck. You're making me miss my car again :( . If you take a look you should be able to find a deccent 95 with avarage miles for $8k-$9k. Maybe even cheaper.

SAL > The 95' I found was a one owner, it was garage kept, the interior is perfect, the dash is perfect and so are the seats> it still looks new inside and smells like leather, the owner never smoked in it, the car has 118k but was serviced regular, so just be paitent and keep looking and you will find them, they are out there but you have to really look for them, i will also keep an eye out for a nice clean one for you too! and by the way mine started out at $7995.00 then it dropped to 6995.00 then to 6495.00 but the owner is standing firm on the last figure, i really can't blame him as he paid 37k for it new.
That is awesome news! I guess I will just have to be patient.. I think I'm going to give up on selling my Vette this year.. I may be asking a thousand too much. No sale yet. So, I'm going to take off the For Sale signs and have a good at it next Spring.. I guess the prices on the Fleetwoods will come down a bit by then too...

This is HotRodSaints 96' Fleetwood >CLEAN<
I like the Original look better...
What is it that I like about the second picture better? I like everything except for the rims.. I'd rather have something more "Cadillac" that Cragers... Otherwise, I like that second pic better...

I FOUND IT!!!

'95 Fleetwood, black on black, 27,500 miles. IN MEMPHIS.

but the guy wants $25,000. :contract:


:crying2: :crybaby: :crying: :crying2: :crybaby: :crying:

here's a link, if you're really interested....

http://appeal.abracat.com/c2/cars/results/index.xml

But im sure it was old person driven, maintained by a cadillac dealer, had a gentle warm up period before each run, never saw anything but sunny days, always garaged......... Im sure that it would be worth every bit of 20k anyway!

I'm going to clip the ad and stick it in my wallet. In a few months, I'll call the guy and see if he still has it. I would be willing to pay up to $15,000 or maybe even $16,000. But not $25,000.

Oh yeah, the ad does say that the owner is 60 years old.

Heck, in a few years you can get it from the next of kin for $12.

Well. Coming back to read some more of this thread - I'm still thinking I'll be satisfied with a '93 Fleetwood Brougham - as long as I do go ahead and get that mirror update. I wonder how hard it'll be to find the parts... Otherwise, I really don't need the LT1.. If I ever want to play with the performance aspects of the car, I'll build something special for it. But, my main ambition is to get back into a Cadillac...

Hey Sal,
I found these Reviews, thought you might be interested in them. http://www.epinions.com/search/?submitted_form=searchbar&search_string=Cadillac+Fleetwood

Well. Coming back to read some more of this thread - I'm still thinking I'll be satisfied with a '93 Fleetwood Brougham - as long as I do go ahead and get that mirror update. I wonder how hard it'll be to find the parts... Otherwise, I really don't need the LT1.. If I ever want to play with the performance aspects of the car, I'll build something special for it. But, my main ambition is to get back into a Cadillac...

What about resale value? Those that have researched the car will prefer a '94-'96.

What about prestige amongst the FoSSaratti?

Please don't do it.

Please we're beggin you!

Buy a Cimmeran! Buy a Catera! Buy a FWD Caddie, but don't buy a '93 Fleetwood! :halo:

Thanks Mike. I'll go check out those links now.. As for the '93 - why is it so bad? If I want to modify it, I can.. I'm not so worried about resale value. I would like my next car to be my car for a long, long, long time...

The only things I like in the newer cars are the 4-spoke steering wheel, I THINK plusher rugs, and those mirrors...

Oh, who knows.. Let's see what I can find...

'93 Fleetwood:
1. LO5 motor, fairly reliable, but still not as durable as the LT1.
2. To change the mirrors, you might as well change the whole door.
3. The electrical harnesses in the '93 had a lot of "issues" we'll call it. They were incorrectly routed in a number of spots and end up producing several highly likely areas for electrical shorts.
4. The front inner fenders have a tendancy to crack due to improper design.
5. The trans was still the 700R-4, which = JUNK!

You want more?

'93 Fleetwood:
5. The trans was still the 700R-4, which = JUNK!Katshot - I respect your knowledge and experience, but IMO you're a bit quick to call things junk. First it was my STS (well, not just my STS but all FWD Cadillacs). Now your dissing both of my turbotrucks :D. Yes, the 700R4 has some durability issues but it can be built to handle a lot of power - trust me on this. It's actually a pretty good performer for a non-electronic controlled tranny.

Please stop calling every vehicle I own junk, okay? :nyanya:

As for the '93 - why is it so bad?

Name one GM car in the last 30 years that was built right the first year of introduction? It has always taken them a few years to fix their engineering. Engines and mirrors are what you see. What did they fix that was a running change?

Katshot - I respect your knowledge and experience, but IMO you're a bit quick to call things junk. First it was my STS (well, not just my STS but all FWD Cadillacs). Now your dissing both of my turbotrucks :D. Yes, the 700R4 has some durability issues but it can be built to handle a lot of power - trust me on this. It's actually a pretty good performer for a non-electronic controlled tranny.

Please stop calling every vehicle I own junk, okay? :nyanya:

Sorry dude but the truth is the truth. I don't know anyone that had a 700R-4 that was worth a shit, PERIOD.
And as far as being able to build them to handle power, I have a few freinds that tried doing Big Block build-ups and also tried using 700s only to finally either dump them for 400s, or just give up all together and go with manuals. I personally had a '84 Chevy 3/4 ton w/700 trans that took (6) rebuilds in 30K miles before I finally dumped the truck, a '86 GMC 3/4 ton that took (3) builds in 50K miles, and several early 90's Chevys with 700s that had plenty of trans problems. I know (3) guys that own trans shops that ALL swear they're junk transmissions, and know NOBODY that uses one in a street rod. So I'm sorry if I believe them to be JUNK.

Syclone and Typhoon are junk? Hell they are the fastest junk I ever seen. Thats one piece of junk I would love to own.

Sorry dude but the truth is the truth. Now Katshot, we've discussed the difference between fact and opinion before. The truth is, although it is difficult to find transmission shops that can do it correctly, it is very possible to build the 700R-4 to handle big power. The Syclone and Typhoon crowd are intimately familiar with this topic - I am not talking off the top of my head. I know of dozens of people running *very* stout 700's including the two in my trucks. As you are no doubt aware, Syclones and Typhoons are turbocharged AWD trucks, with stock Syclones in '91 running 0-60 in 4.6 seconds and the 1/4 mile in mid to high 13's. Currently, modified trucks are running much faster, with a couple of trucks in the 9's, and quite a few in the 10's. It's not uncommon for 0-60 times to be under 4 seconds. The favored launch technique - powerbraking to 5 - 10 psi boost - coupled with the AWD drivetrain and extremely high torque of the turbo V6 makes for extreme stress on the transmission not to mention the rest of the powertrain. Unfortunately, modifying the trucks to work with other trannys is very difficult if you want to keep the AWD and OD. Therefore, years of research and development have gone into making the 700R-4 hold up. If your interested I can get you some details on the special parts used. Unless you do your homework and get the work done at one of the few good shops, or do it yourself with some of the kits now available, you will end up with a junk 700R-4. Don't make the mistake of writing them off though - the good ones are just not on your radar screen - until now.

Believe me, I've been there, done that, and got the Teeshirt. This I know!

Syclone and Typhoon are junk? Hell they are the fastest junk I ever seen. Thats one piece of junk I would love to own.

Who said anything about the VEHICLES that use 700s??????
I just don't like the transmissions.

Now Katshot, we've discussed the difference between fact and opinion before. The truth is, although it is difficult to find transmission shops that can do it correctly, it is very possible to build the 700R-4 to handle big power. The Syclone and Typhoon crowd are intimately familiar with this topic - I am not talking off the top of my head. I know of dozens of people running *very* stout 700's including the two in my trucks. As you are no doubt aware, Syclones and Typhoons are turbocharged AWD trucks, with stock Syclones in '91 running 0-60 in 4.6 seconds and the 1/4 mile in mid to high 13's. Currently, modified trucks are running much faster, with a couple of trucks in the 9's, and quite a few in the 10's. It's not uncommon for 0-60 times to be under 4 seconds. The favored launch technique - powerbraking to 5 - 10 psi boost - coupled with the AWD drivetrain and extremely high torque of the turbo V6 makes for extreme stress on the transmission not to mention the rest of the powertrain. Unfortunately, modifying the trucks to work with other trannys is very difficult if you want to keep the AWD and OD. Therefore, years of research and development have gone into making the 700R-4 hold up. If your interested I can get you some details on the special parts used. Unless you do your homework and get the work done at one of the few good shops, or do it yourself with some of the kits now available, you will end up with a junk 700R-4. Don't make the mistake of writing them off though - the good ones are just not on your radar screen - until now.

Believe me, I've been there, done that, and got the Teeshirt. This I know!

Sorry,
The facts are STILL the facts. Nobody said you couldn't make a 700 work, I just said that the 700 was a POS. Hell, there's a lot of guys out there building 200-4Rs and loving 'em. That doesn't change the fact that the basic "original" design of the unit is highly prone to failure just as I mentioned about the 700s.
And the Syclone/Typhoon are NOT quite the same application (or trans) as the average run of the mill RWD ones. And in those applications, it's not like they have a lot of choices on boxes to use either.
My statement stands that IMO, the 700R-4 is a junk transmission.

My statement stands that IMO, the 700R-4 is a junk transmission.So does mine, that you are quick to call things junk, usually indicating a strong emotional feeling which you can not defend by logic or reason. Junk is defined as: "something of little meaning, worth, or significance". Calling everything you don't happen to like junk is very narrowminded and egoistical (not egotistical). I say again, I respect your knowledge and experience, but you do lessen your credibility when you make these silly blanket statements. I submit to you that your comments in this regard are junk.

Now I think I'll go take a joyride in one of my "junk" turbotrucks and go looking for some hotshot in a RWD V8 with a Katshot-approved transmission and have me some fun.

So does mine, that you are quick to call things junk, usually indicating a strong emotional feeling which you can not defend by logic or reason. Junk is defined as: "something of little meaning, worth, or significance". Calling everything you don't happen to like junk is very narrowminded and egoistical (not egotistical). I say again, I respect your knowledge and experience, but you do lessen your credibility when you make these silly blanket statements. I submit to you that your comments in this regard are junk.

Now I think I'll go take a joyride in one of my "junk" turbotrucks and go looking for some hotshot in a RWD V8 with a Katshot-approved transmission and have me some fun.

As usual, you take everything to extremes and try to cloud the issue by personally attacking the opposition.

As I already pointed out, I dislike the transmissions, not the vehicles they're in. GET IT? (although truth be told, I DO think those two trucks were JUNK. They're just DAMN FAST junk)
And as for my choice of adjectives, try not to take everything so damn literally. I hope you don't think that if I call something a POS that I truely want to debate whether I believe it to ACTUALLY be a piece of fecal matter. :rolleyes:
Try READING the posts and understanding the intent of the statements within rather than picking on grammatical errors, or literal textbook definitions of words. Ever hear of SLANG? Don't try to "pretend" that you didn't know EXACTLY what I meant by the word "JUNK".
Stop trying to cover up your lack of automotive knowledge by picking on how a person writes a post or tries to express his feelings on a matter. It only "lessens your credibility".

Well, since I'm not the only one who takes exception to your "junk" labels, it's not just me. And since these Forums are for the most part made up of remotely typed responses between people who have never met, not in person discussions, it's pretty much only your words we have to go by. It's only by drawing you out a bit that we can see where your coming from. So now you're saying that when you call something junk, you don't mean junk, you mean something else. Um, that was my point all along. As if you didn't know......although truth be told, I DO think those two trucks were JUNK. They're just DAMN FAST junk...I take it this is slang for "I haven't owned one of these trucks but I have gotten my ass kicked by them before...". Because you can't deny they do indeed have considerable worth, meaning, and significance. Damn fun to drive, too!

I'll end my participation in this thread by saying that I certainly don't agree with you on this issue for the reasons I've given. I'd like to suggest that Katshot rethink his use of the term "junk" or in the alternative that he not be taken aback when called on it.

Well, since I'm not the only one who takes exception to your "junk" labels, it's not just me. And since these Forums are for the most part made up of remotely typed responses between people who have never met, not in person discussions, it's pretty much only your words we have to go by. It's only by drawing you out a bit that we can see where your coming from. So now you're saying that when you call something junk, you don't mean junk, you mean something else. Um, that was my point all along. As if you didn't know...I take it this is slang for "I haven't owned one of these trucks but I have gotten my ass kicked by them before...". Because you can't deny they do indeed have considerable worth, meaning, and significance. Damn fun to drive, too!

I'll end my participation in this thread by saying that I certainly don't agree with you on this issue for the reasons I've given. I'd like to suggest that Katshot rethink his use of the term "junk" or in the alternative that he not be taken aback when called on it.

Isn't it time for you to go on hiatus again?

IMO,
Syclone/Typhoon = POS GM "S" Truck with an awesome engine.
Don't even TRY to tell me anything GOOD about the S-trucks :rolleyes:
I'll take a Lightning any day. You can have your Syclone/Typhoon. At least a Lightning starts out with a good, solid truck. Next thing you'll be telling me that a Grand National is more than just a "G" body with a great engine. If GM had decided to put that engine in the Cutlass H.O. or 442, Pontiac Grand Prix, or yes even the Monte Carlo SS, THOSE cars would be enjoying the spot in the history books that the Regal enjoys.
So don't get all pumped-up about that "S" truck, it's just so much sheet metal covering up a great engine.

BTW, Just so you don't feel the need to "draw me out" to "see where I'm coming from", I'll make sure to keep my comments about the worth of a vehicle or one of its sub-assemblies more "technically" correct for you.
:banghead:

I agree that those trannys are junk. What junk means is a "bad design".
Doesn't mean they can't work, but, in normal use, they are not good.
To me, the word "junk" says all that in just four letters, right to the point,

I also have owned a 94 Lightning, and am looking to buy another 1st generation L, along with a Fleetwood. The Ligntning is a great truck.
Owned a Dodge 98 R/T....nice truck....liked the club cab, since I'm 6'2,
but it didn't have the punch of the Lightning.

Also, have owned a S truck. That is a POS, especially when compared to the Lightning. Just because I owned one doesn't make it not a POS.

What POS means is "bad design". Doesn't mean they can't work, but, in normal use, they are not good. Short, and to the point in this time only 3 letters.

AMF, just my .02,
Paul G.

Jeez. I could create a message board for Katshot and the Sandman exclusively and it would probably be busier than this whole site!

Let's say I was to start a thread called, "700R-4: Hot or Not" - which sites should I go to to attract people for a good debate? Because I'm really curious as to what the final outcome would be when there's 50 people participating...

I'm drooling over what this car could be without all the hydraulics... (no offense meant if the owner is a member here)

http://www.cardomain.com/member_pages/view_page.pl?page_id=160528&make_type_query=make%3DCadillac&model_brand_query=model%3DFleetwood&tree=Cadillac%20Fleetwood


That's a friend of mine's car. It is actually CLEANER in real life than in those photos. I actually have a video of it dancing (http://www.uniquekind.net/CaddyPage/HostedImages/104_0468.avi) . :) I'm not one for hydros either, but you gotta admit, it IS pretty damn cool! ;)

Hold out for that clean 95 guys. Keep an eye on eBay. They go dirt cheap on there all the time! Nice, elderly owned, Florida cars. :)

Jeez. I could create a message board for Katshot and the Sandman exclusively and it would probably be busier than this whole site!

Let's say I was to start a thread called, "700R-4: Hot or Not" - which sites should I go to to attract people for a good debate? Because I'm really curious as to what the final outcome would be when there's 50 people participating...

Maybe you should have a separate section like that. Just name it "Kat's Place" or something like that. ;)

And apparantly I wasn't the only one on temporary hiatus from this place because of the childish bickering...

I agree that those trannys are junk. What junk means is a "bad design".
Doesn't mean they can't work, but, in normal use, they are not good.
To me, the word "junk" says all that in just four letters, right to the point,

I also have owned a 94 Lightning, and am looking to buy another 1st generation L, along with a Fleetwood. The Ligntning is a great truck.
Owned a Dodge 98 R/T....nice truck....liked the club cab, since I'm 6'2,
but it didn't have the punch of the Lightning.

Also, have owned a S truck. That is a POS, especially when compared to the Lightning. Just because I owned one doesn't make it not a POS.

What POS means is "bad design". Doesn't mean they can't work, but, in normal use, they are not good. Short, and to the point in this time only 3 letters.

AMF, just my .02,
Paul G.

SEE, he gets it.