In my search for a RWD Brougham, Coupe, or Fleetwood I am running into a problem. I am looking for any of the above models from 1982 thru 1992 (since this timeframe is my favorite body style) and it seems like every "for sale" add I come across; the cars are either equipped with a 4.1 or Oldsmobile's wheezy 307. Obviously in that timeframe I really don't have too many choices. I don't want an 8 6 4 model and I definitely don't one with a diesel 350 Olds.

Yes, I could jump up to a 1991/2 and find a Brougham with a Chevy 305 or 350, but again 97% of them have a 305 which in my opinion isn't much better (power wise) than an Olds 307. And any one that I am lucky enough to find with a 350 is usually a grand more than a 305 equivalent. Also, I'm not big on the composite headlight look.

Needless to say, I'm kind of stumped as to what I should do. I've driven a few Fleetwoods/Broughams with the Olds 307 and honestly I was afraid to merge on the highway with them in fear of being run over by traffic. I used to have a 2.2 L 4 banger S10 that I swear would have looked like a drag truck next to one of these cars and that isn't saying much.

I don't expect a 4.1 power plant to be much better. I honestly don't know since I've never driven a 4.1 powered car before. The only thing that appeals to me about the 4.1 is the fact that its fuel injected which would be a lot nicer in the winter compared to a carbureted car.

Is there another engine option between the years of '82 and '90 that I overlooked? Should I just find an '82-'90 and swap in an Olds gas 350? Should I just deal with an underpowered engine and shut up? Are you angry at me for typing and babbling on so much about some stupid dilemma?

Any help is much appreciated.

Michael Koch.




***Please note that I am not bashing any of the motors I stated that I disliked. These are just my own opinions formed from personal experiences and long hours of reading. The end***

the 368 is a great motor from what ive heard, loads of power, all you need to do is disable the 8-6-4 function, which is as simple as cutting a few wires. this is what i hear anyway. i have the oldsmobile 307, and you really do need to rev it until the valves are about to burst thru the hood to get anywhere. (thats why im getting a 500 or 472 in there eventually) but if your up to the task of swapping out an engine, a 307 car will be more than tolerable until you drop in something bigger. if body work is easier than changing an engine, you could just get a car with a 350 and simply put the quad headlights in. (i agree they look better) steer clear of the 4.1. ive heard horror stories. there are a few survivors, but they are extremely rare and still dont work right all the time.

(if any of this is hideously inaccurate, feel free to correct me)

Lazarus speaks the truth. The 368 is a fine engine. All it takes to disable the variable displacement function is cutting one wire from the trans. This will probably be done on any car you find. Don't forget, the 8-6-4 is 81 only. 80 has the same engine, but carb instead of TBI. So, if you want a reliable engine, with decent torque, and don't want the 90-92 look, add the 80 and 81 to your list.

1980 is a good choice although not that many were produced. Jay loves it when I bring the unfortunate reality of disasterous politics into these discussions :) yet, as we see repeating today, jimmy carter's economic decisions created an economic crisis coupled with sky high gas prices so big RWD cars weren't being produced or sold in 1980 like they were up through 1979. If you're looking for one tough automobile with a big engine and similar lines to the 1980-92 cars you should consider the 1977-79 deVilles and Fleetwoods. They have a giant 7.0 Liter/425 cube V8 which is bullet proof, they have no electronics or check engine light, and they simply go and go and go! I drive mine every day plus on cross country road trips at least twice a year and I have never been let down or left wondering.

I vote 91/92 and swap the front end. You should be able to get a decent amount for the euro front end. Then you have the reliability of the TBI, some decent power and there easy enough to repair. But if you can find a decent coupe...

I like the 307 engine personally. Bullet proof as well. Just make sure you get the de Elegance which gives you the 3.23 gearing. For a little extra oomph I put a high flow exhaust and fabricated a dual snorkel setup on the air cleaner housing. Advanced the timing 2 degrees and run premium as well as new plugs, wires and cap. Also tweaked the secondaries on carb so they open fully and viola, smooth running and decent acceleration. I have zero trouble merging on the breezeway. Its quicker than my 91 caprice with 305. Not saying much I know but its a 4500 lb car and for a few bucks can make adequate power. How fast do you need it?

I love the 1980's myself. The interior still has the look of the '79, but with the '80's bodystyle, and the fact that it has no computer sells it for me. Great motor/trans combo and a non ccc carb makes it so much easier to work on.

I second a 1980 (...obviously). I love the body style and the carbed 368 with the THM400 in a non commercial chassis are the last of it's kind.

However, if I had to choose between a '80 and an '81 with the 8-6-4 I would go with the '81 in a heartbeat. There's a lot of potential in the '81 to improve upon. I would get a MegaSquirt FI system and place the cylinder deactivation under manual or improved computer control, make it like GM intended with modern technology. I used to get 25 MPG on the highway in my old '81 SDV (may she rust in piece), it was pretty slick.

One other advantage for the 368 cars would be the ease of future engine swaps, I'm pretty sure I could drop a 500 in my '80 and it would fit like a glove with only minor headaches. Now if I could just decide if I want to keep it bone stock or go to town on it...

What is boils down to with these cars is how much money you want to spend.... you pay for what you get.

I used to own a 1980 cdv., very nice car with the 368 cu. inch,same style as your looking for,stay away from 4.1, the 1981 was the one with the 8-6-4-, the 368 is a very good engine, not too big and not too small.

What is boils down to with these cars is how much money you want to spend.... you pay for what you get.

True. I love the 350tbi under the hood of my car. Fires up every time and hasn't missed a beat in the 15k miles I've owned it. Its got a lot of torque, not a lot of top end though. It'll bark the tires off the line, but runs out of steam past 3500rpms.

I have no problem with my 307. It isn't as bad as people say it is. Yes it does have a slow acceleration, but it accelerates smoothly through all gears (unlike the 4100, which is faster out of the gate but gets stuck at 2nd), and maintains speed very well. Unless you're at a complete stop, merging into highway traffic is no problem. Mine takes about 5-10 seconds to get from 40 to 60 (and that is without mashing the gas, opening the secondaries, or doing anything above normal acceleration). I usually maintain 60, and get passed, but if I'm in a hurry I can sustain 75, and easily make 80+ to pass. I have never felt the engine plateau, like it wasn't going to go any faster.

But because everything can use more power, the 307 can be upgraded from the LV2 (VIN Y) format to the LG8 (VIN 9) format. The LG8 has an output of 180 hp. To upgrade an LV2 engine, you need to change the heads, cam shaft, carburetor, and vibration dampener. LG8 307's also got duel exhaust. It shouldn't be that expensive of an upgrade; engine parts can be taken off of 83-84 Hurst/Olds, 85-87 Olds 442, and 85-89 Cadillac Brougham (VIN 9) engines. You might get lucky and find a Cadillac with an LG8, which would be more fuel efficient than the 368 and will make almost the same horsepower as the LO5 (185 BHP)

First of all, thank you everyone for all your advice and prompt responses. Here are my thoughts on the issue:

Although I'd love a '77-'80 with either a 425 or a 368, I don't want to compromise gas mileage with the larger cubes. I'd also feel like I am ruining a car of that vintage by driving it year 'round through the snow and ice and I wouldn't want to do that since they are harder to come by around here than their 80's brethren. This may sound silly, but I feel like I’d be destroying it for others who have the time and extra space to buy an old Caddy like than and pamper the way it should be pampered.

In general, I've gotten spoiled by fuel injection. I love my auto start and ease of starting on those cold winter mornings/nights. I'm no dummy when it comes to carburetors though; since I've owned 8 mechanically fed vehicles so far. It would be nice to find a FI 368 powered Caddy and just eliminate the 8 6 4 control, but there are NONE of them left around here. I mean none. I've maybe seen one in real life when I was about 12 years old, but all the rest have long been junked due to engine failure.

My next option is to find a car with the Olds 307. Now I actually love this motor for its dependability. I had an '85 Cutlass a few years back that I bought as a winter beater and it had a 307. I only paid a $500 for the car so needless to say I beat the snot out of it. One night the belt that drove the water pump and power steering broke off and drove it home without noticing. I opened the hood and the exhaust manifolds were GLOWING red. I put a new belt on the next morning and drove the car trouble free for the rest of the winter. It was almost like that motor said "please beat me and neglect me; I love it". Anyhow, I bet an Edelbrock intake, a 600 cfm carb, a little timing bump and some true duals would wake a 307 up quite nicely. Then again, do I want to go back to something with a carburetor?

I'm listening to you guys when you say stay away from the 4100. I've heard enough terrible stories about them by myself and I'm sure if you guys say they are junk, then they are junk.

As far as the 1991's/2's are concerned, I suppose I could do a header panel swap to the old style quad sealed beams I adore so much. Then the issue of the 305 comes back up. My father used to have a '92 GMC truck with a TBI 305 and it was a doggy motor. It had trouble getting out of its own way. Now, maybe I'll get lucky and find an affordable 350 powered Brougham but that's unlikely.

Now I'm not looking for a hot rod here; I just want something to match the power and the economy of the 4.9 in my Deville. Maybe not match exactly, but something close. Is that asking too much from a big RWD land yacht?

Between the HT4100 and 307, I'd definitely go for the 307. I've driven both (an '84 SDV and an '90 BDE), and the HT4100 seems faster out of the hole, but only because it's got better throttle response due to it being TBI and having a steeper rear end. Like someone else said, once it hits 2nd gear, it falls on it's face. The HT4100 is slow and unreliable, the 307 is just slow. That sentence sums up the argument.

I just want something to match the power and the economy of the 4.9 in my Deville. Maybe not match exactly, but something close. Is that asking too much from a big RWD land yacht?

The closest you're gonna get is a TBI 5.7. It's got about 80% of the power, but doesn't offer mileage like you're used to. The 5.7 gets about 13/22 and the 4.9 gets 16/26. The TBI 5.7 has the low end torque of the 4.9, but doesn't have the midrange or top end of the 4.9. A friend's brother has a TBI 5.0 Camaro and it's a dog, now just imagine that in a car 1000 lbs heavier than the Camaro and it's not looking a whole lot better than a 307.

That makes a lot of sense.

Now I could leave my body style preferences behind and jump up to a '94/5/6 Fleetwood and get some LT1 power :cool:

The problem is I hate how that body looks. I just need to decide which demon to feed; the one in charge of my eye sight or the one who controls my right foot.

Is an '81 v6 out of the question? I have a '95 4.9, an '81 v6 and an '81 with a 472 swap in my driveway. The v6 will beat the 4.9 for economy, but isn't half as quick, but is peppier off the line than the 307 (because of the gearing). IMO, if you're going to get a RWD '80's car, bone stock, I don't think you'll find anything that can keep up with the 4.9, not even close. The 472 swap is the greatest car I've ever driven. It's way faster than the 4.9, but gets about 10 gpm, but that's my fault, I'm not going for economy in that project.

this may sound silly, but I feel like I’d be destroying it for others who have the time and extra space to buy an old Caddy like than and pamper the way it should be pampered.


Don't worry about ruining a good car, I'm sure there's lots of people that will do much worse than you could. You could be saving the car from one of those.

Take a look at autotrader.com and I know I've seen some '81 V8-6-4 cars recently on there. Craigslist has stuff like this too. The junk yard and cash for clunkers hasn't gotten all of these cars...yet.

I always chuckle when the topic of gas mileage comes up in this forum. My 79 Cadillac with its genuine Cadillac old school overbuilt 425 can be relied upon for an honest 11 mpg city and 15 mpg highway. As the magazine ads used to say: "you don't have to pamper a Cadillac - it pampers you!" Not even a cash for clunkers poisoning couldn't kill a 425 - - I have a feeling these tough old birds would laugh, stick their tongues out, give the finger, and run forever but just pollute waayyyyyy more in wise protest! :) I digress, sorry Jay. Oldsmobile and Chevrolet engines were essential to the survival of the big Brougham because R&D dollars were being spent elsewhere at Cadillac, almost ruined the brand, and these big RWD cars in the 1980's were made for relative economy and in the early 1990's the need for performance was essential, the Reagan economy had taken hold, and there was big money being made and no smart people want to drive slow, cramped econoboxes when they're flush! Look where we're going now....

I applaud you for desiring a big Cad and I predict that if you drive what you want your life will be all that much more pleasurable and rich, and when you look back in a few years at the decisions you're making right now, you'll no doubt smile and chuckle knowing that in the brief time span of our lives that yours was spent behind the wheel of a truly fantastic car that tickled you immeasurably and the nominal extra dollars, if any, were worth it because you were able to enjoy an all American symbol of greatness that you can put your hands on and your rear end in (that is, in its comfortable pillowy seats). Get ready! :) GS Chad, are you taking notes? :) :) :)

Local to me 1981 Fleetwood Brougham D'Elegance for sale (http://ottawa.kijiji.ca/c-cars-vehicles-classic-cars-Needs-loving-home-with-GARAGE-1981-cadillac-Fleetwood-d-Elega-W0QQAdIdZ134883778). Only 73 000 miles. Asking 2500 Canadian, and I'm sure they will take less.

http://img1.classistatic.com/cps/kj/090808/421r2/96648l1_20.jpeg

http://img1.classistatic.com/cps/kj/090808/421r2/0346ii_20.jpeg

Jay, THAT is a BEAUTY! And CHEAP! :) The interior upholstery above is a combination of two fabrics: the main fabric, shiny and velvety, is called "Raphael" and the accent fabric is called "Heather." Ahhhh, the look of fine furniture! I predict interiors like this will make a comeback since they are deliciously FABULOUS and people are thirsting for such decadent luxury to pamper themselves with!!! :) :) :)

Yep, that's the exact interior in my coupe. I really like the dark blue compared to the lighter blue found in the mid 80s cars. I have not gone to see the car... mainly because I know if it is nice I will buy it. How cool would it be to have the coupe and sedan together?

That is an awesome Caddy, except for that grill. But you can easily swap that for a waterfall one I believe.

Don't hate on the eggcrate grille! That is more traditional "Cadillac" than the waterfall style.

Don't hate on the eggcrate grille! That is more traditional "Cadillac" than the waterfall style.

Yeah... But the least Cadillac could have done was tried. ..to make it look like it belongs. .. to make it look like real chrome. .. not to make it look like plastic. .. to capture the glory of the original design. Tried...

I predict that if you drive what you want your life will be all that much more pleasurable and rich, and when you look back in a few years at the decisions you're making right now, you'll no doubt smile and chuckle knowing that in the brief time span of our lives that yours was spent behind the wheel of a truly fantastic car that tickled you immeasurably and the nominal extra dollars, if any, were worth it because you were able to enjoy an all American symbol of greatness that you can put your hands on and your rear end in (that is, in its comfortable pillowy seats). Get ready! :) GS Chad, are you taking notes? :) :) :)

That's exactly how I feel about that S-Class I had. The Cadillac too, but not as much.

Local to me 1981 Fleetwood Brougham D'Elegance for sale (http://ottawa.kijiji.ca/c-cars-vehicles-classic-cars-Needs-loving-home-with-GARAGE-1981-cadillac-Fleetwood-d-Elega-W0QQAdIdZ134883778). Only 73 000 miles. Asking 2500 Canadian, and I'm sure they will take less.

http://img1.classistatic.com/cps/kj/090808/421r2/96648l1_20.jpeg

http://img1.classistatic.com/cps/kj/090808/421r2/0346ii_20.jpeg

That car is in great condition, but that light blue/ dark blue interior isn't for me. A dark blue/tan or black/tan car would be more up my alley. Anyways, if the color combo works for you, then go for it!


Don't hate on the eggcrate grille! That is more traditional "Cadillac" than the waterfall style.

The '81 grille is one of my favorites! I much prefer the eggcrate grille to the waterfall grille used between '82 and '86.

Good news! I was surfing through Craig's List today and I found a for sale add hidden deep within the bowels of the site. I came across an '82 Coupe with 67,000 original miles for 2,900 bucks! There was no picture, but I called the owner who happens to be an older Polish/Lithuanian gentleman who is going through a divorce and needs to sell the car due to loss of a garage.

He told me the car is in very nice condition and is brown on brown. He didn't know what engine is in it; all he could tell me was it has a "big V8". I'm thinking more than likely it's a 4.1, but we'll see. Anyways, I am going to look at it tomorrow afternoon since it's only about 12 miles directly north of me. I'll take some pics and keep you all updated!!

Good luck! If it's a V8, it is either the 4.1 or the diesel 5.7. That's all you could get in the coupe in 82. Is is a DeVille or a Fleetwood?

Anyways, if the color combo works for you, then go for it!

Nah, I have more cars than I know what to do with. That's why I like helping others on their search... all the fun of the hunt, and I don't have to worry about storage.

It's a 1982 Coupe Deville. I'm not too excited about either motor, but if it looks as good as the owner says it does then I can deal with it. He said he's taking offers becasue he's losing storage soon.

Hey, just a side note. If it's a diesel 350, is there any way to convert it to a gasser? I'm assuming no since the difference in compression and fuel delivery and all.

You can convert, but it involves replacing everything but the block.

That's what I thought. Well, if push comes to shove I have a 350 Chevy sitting in my garage that should bolt up quite nicely.

The 4.1 is a dog, my friend had an '85 Fleetwood with one. However, it is a good engine if taken care of properly. As for the engine swap, make sure you check the trans and rear end first. The 4.1 equipped models had weaker ones than the diesel models.

I have owned(currently own 1 of each) 3 307's and 3 350's. By far the 350 overs such much more power over the 307. The 307 delivers better gas mileage, and very smooth acceleration. I do notice that on the 350 that with a little wear and mileage they tend to blow small puff of smoke upon starting. The 307's never have. My first 307 had 99,xxx miles. My second had 93,xxx when I got it and when she finally died she had 38x,xxx miles. That car was taken on a trip from Pennsylvania to Florida one year and actual calculated mileage from fillup to fillup was 26.8mpg. That was cruising on I95 with traffic through VA, NC, SC and into Georiga. My current 307 has just under 46,xxx miles and performs flawlessly, with the exception of torque converter troubles. My first 350 had 87,xxx miles when I purchased it and had somewhere around 167,xxx when I sold it. It as well as my current 350, which has 220,xxx miles both have that puff of smoke upon starting. In all, I like the better power offering from a 350, but really enjoy the 307 overall, when comparing to these years.

The 4.1 is a dog, my friend had an '85 Fleetwood with one. However, it is a good engine if taken care of properly. As for the engine swap, make sure you check the trans and rear end first. The 4.1 equipped models had weaker ones than the diesel models.

I doubt that anybody is going to be breaking rear ends on a 4.1 V8 car:histeric::histeric::histeric:

I'm pretty sure(not 100%) that the 7.5" 10 bolt rear end used in the 4.1 Caddy is the same rear end used under s10 trucks and 93-02 fbody's. With the high hp LT1 and LS1, people do break them, especially people running manual transmissions and doing high rpm clutch dumps.

I do notice that on the 350 that with a little wear and mileage they tend to blow small puff of smoke upon starting.

Yep, mine does that and it only has 75k miles. It needs new valve seals. There is a kid at my school that has a 350 powered Camaro that does the same thing and its only got 120k miles. Its not burning enough to be concerned about it yet, but its painful to see a giant puff of burning oil come out the back upon startup.

My 350 has 118k on it and does no such nonsense. It could be that it has something to do with the car sitting for a long period of time. I'm pretty certain that my car hasn't sat for more than 6-7 months at a time, and that might have been for the last 3-4 winters. Before that it was owned by an old man who lived in Florida.

The closest you're gonna get is a TBI 5.7. It's got about 80% of the power, but doesn't offer mileage like you're used to. The 5.7 gets about 13/22 and the 4.9 gets 16/26. The TBI 5.7 has the low end torque of the 4.9, but doesn't have the midrange or top end of the 4.9. A friend's brother has a TBI 5.0 Camaro and it's a dog, now just imagine that in a car 1000 lbs heavier than the Camaro and it's not looking a whole lot better than a 307.

5.7L has more torque then the 4.9, faster to get upto speed and about the same for gas mileage too.

5.7L has more torque then the 4.9, faster to get upto speed and about the same for gas mileage too.

The 350 also has a lot more car to pull around. I had a 1990 Seville STS with the 4.5 V8, it was way faster than my Brougham, had a lot more midrange-upper RPM punch.

The 350 also has a lot more car to pull around. I had a 1990 Seville STS with the 4.5 V8, it was way faster than my Brougham, had a lot more midrange-upper RPM punch.
That's probably more to do with being whatever changes they did on those STSs. The only thing different between 5.7L Broughams and 4.9L cars is the 4.9 picks up a bit faster when you're already moving but its also working harder to do that.

A 4.9 deVille does 0-60 in 8.0-8.4 seconds. A 5.7 TBI Brougham does it in 9.1-9.4 seconds. I think that's a fairly sizable difference.

5.7L has more torque then the 4.9, faster to get upto speed and about the same for gas mileage too.

Um, no. Having owned cars with both engines, the 4.9 gets far superior fuel economy (mainly because it is multi-port injected) and is much quicker. My Brougham is quick to get up to 25-30 but after that it is toast. Passing at highway speed can be potentially life threatening if you don't plan it right. It tops out 109. There is no speed limiter, it just won't go any faster. The highest fuel economy I have ever gotten in the city was 14.1, average is around 13.5. Highway is usually 19-21 at 65 mph.

My old '95 DeVille on the other hand was fantastic both in power and fuel economy. I averaged 17-18 in the city when I babied it and got close to 27 on the highway at 75. I have had it up to the speed limiter, which was 112, and it pulled hard the entire way. I was very impressed with it and it could have easily gone faster if not for the fuel cutoff.

All in all, if you were to race any 4.9 powered car against any 350 Brougham, regardless of starting or ending speed, the 4.9 would come out on top every time, guaranteed. I'm not saying either is a superior engine, they were both designed for different purposes. Broughams with the 350 were designed to pull a 5000 lb trailer while 4.9 cars were designed to be a powerful daily driver, but if its speed and fuel economy you want over sheer brute force, the 4.9 is for you.

I'd say the difference between the 350 Brougham and a 4.9 DeVille is the same as the difference between a 4.9 DeVille and a Northstar DeVille.

Who cares!?! A rear drive deVille or Brougham from whatever year has far more presence than any front driver with whatever engine and the fact that people care shows that the front drive cars mean little to what the rear drive interested people care about. You must have a passion for the big All-American rear drive cars, regardless of fuel economy or oil leakage, so buy one because your heart and soul tell you its the right thing. A fraction of second here or there or a gallon of gas up or down really doesn't mean a whole lot in the final analysis. Do it if you know it's right for you. Enjoy life behind the wheel of a car that gives you PLEASURE. :) :) :) :) :) :) ;)

Bro-Ham, that is why I drive one. However, I just felt the need to say that the 4.9 is faster.

Dave, that you for getting this back on track.

However, I just felt the need to say that the 4.9 is faster.
Ditto. My 1991 Seville equipped with 4.9 liter literally flew up a hill in the 3-rd gear with gas pedal half way down. It takes my 95 Brougham nearly WOT to get the same acceleration and speed, and that usually means the 2-nd gear and worse fuel economy. I realize the difference in the weights is involved.

Ya know, my Cadillac is sooooo slow that I'm not sure I'd ever have the patience to figure out just how slow it is! :) The ride, however, the very cushiest and most magic carpet of all time! :) Plus, it LOOKS like a Cadillac - - the long and lovely look, the finely furnished interior, and the lost art of American luxury lives on and on every day in my life. Ahhhhhhhhhh!!! :) :) :) :) :)

Ya know, my Cadillac is sooooo slow that I'm not sure I'd ever have the patience to figure out just how slow it is! :) The ride, however, the very cushiest and most magic carpet of all time! :) Plus, it LOOKS like a Cadillac - - the long and lovely look, the finely furnished interior, and the lost art of American luxury lives on and on every day in my life. Ahhhhhhhhhh!!! :) :) :) :) :)

I hear you!

Bro-Ham, you are making me anxious. I am sad. :(

However!! On a happier note: tomorrow my car gets towed to the shop where the work is being done. A friend of my dad's who worked as a tech at the Buick/Pontiac/GMC dealer he used to work for opened up his own shop. He said he'd diagnose it for free, and let me pick all my own parts (hello rock auto!).

Progress, yay!!

Sting, Quit being sad! Turn your frown upside down! Get your boat to float and have some fun! Where there's a will there's a way! Show us you can do it! Everyone is rooting for you!!! :) :) :) :) By the way, where the H - E - Double Toothpicks are your pictures!!??!! :) You already own the car...go for it Sting!!!

No pictures yet, nothing's changed. See my original thread (you're gonna have to dig, lol).

Don't worry, there will be pics when it's ready. Lots and lots of them.

Um, no. Having owned cars with both engines, the 4.9 gets far superior fuel economy (mainly because it is multi-port injected) and is much quicker. My Brougham is quick to get up to 25-30 but after that it is toast. Passing at highway speed can be potentially life threatening if you don't plan it right. It tops out 109. There is no speed limiter, it just won't go any faster. The highest fuel economy I have ever gotten in the city was 14.1, average is around 13.5. Highway is usually 19-21 at 65 mph.

My old '95 DeVille on the other hand was fantastic both in power and fuel economy. I averaged 17-18 in the city when I babied it and got close to 27 on the highway at 75. I have had it up to the speed limiter, which was 112, and it pulled hard the entire way. I was very impressed with it and it could have easily gone faster if not for the fuel cutoff.

All in all, if you were to race any 4.9 powered car against any 350 Brougham, regardless of starting or ending speed, the 4.9 would come out on top every time, guaranteed. I'm not saying either is a superior engine, they were both designed for different purposes. Broughams with the 350 were designed to pull a 5000 lb trailer while 4.9 cars were designed to be a powerful daily driver, but if its speed and fuel economy you want over sheer brute force, the 4.9 is for you.

Say whatever you want. There is nothing better then owning both at the same time to know what they are like. And if passing is a life threatening experience with yours there's something wrong with it.