: 5.0 vs 5.7



robb257731
12-04-09, 09:52 AM
Hi All,

I've run across at 1992 Brougham D'Elegance with the 5.0L engine, 160k km for $2200 Canadian. It was a trade at a GM dealership, and it's a really nice car.

My 1991 is a 5.7. Would there be a noticeable difference between the two? When I was initially looking for a Brougham, I was told to look for a 5.7 as it was a better engine.

dirt_cheap_fleetwood
12-04-09, 12:05 PM
The 5.7 is not necessarily a better engine, but it certainly has more power than the 5.0. They are both great in these cars, but you will notice the 5.7 makes the car move faster. Another part of it is that the 5.7 equipped cars have the tow package as well, so the suspension is stiffer and the rear end gearing is higher.

Bro-Ham
12-04-09, 01:28 PM
In 1992 the 5.0 was fuel injected. Was the 5.0 in 1992 a 305, not a 307? I believe that is the case. I have the 1992 Brougham factory sales brochure at home and it shows the horsepower and I believe the 1992 5.0 V8 was 170 hp and the 5.7 was 185 hp. Torque was greater in the 5.7, of course. Let me know if you want me to verify those numbers when I get home. I would drive the 1992 with the 5.0. :)

sven914
12-04-09, 02:15 PM
^The 305 was used in 91 and 92 and it was TBI.

The 305 won't be as zippy, but it will offer slightly better fuel mileage and a better (softer and smoother) ride feel than the 350.

robb257731
12-04-09, 02:55 PM
Thanks for the thoughts! I may just mosey out and take it for a spin.

AElayyat
12-04-09, 08:47 PM
Hi All,

I've run across at 1992 Brougham D'Elegance with the 5.0L engine, 160k km for $2200 Canadian. It was a trade at a GM dealership, and it's a really nice car.

My 1991 is a 5.7. Would there be a noticeable difference between the two? When I was initially looking for a Brougham, I was told to look for a 5.7 as it was a better engine.

Here it its. I have 3 Broughams, 85, 89, & 90. I have not drove a 91-92 w/ the Chevy 5.0.

The 4100 just sucks period
The Olds 5.0 w/ Carb is not that bad, better than the 4100
The Chevy 5.7 kicks ass!

In my opinion if you have the option to choose between a 5.0 & 5.7 go with the 5.7. For me though the 90-92 Broughams were getting very hard to find in my region of the county for some odd reason. I got lucky w/ my 90 Brougham.

Good luck.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-04-09, 08:50 PM
The 305 was a very solid engine, not as powerful as the 350, but still better than the HT4100 and 307. If it was a D'Elegance, I wouldn't pass it up just because it's got the 305. The 350 is the better engine, but only because it's got more power, aside from that, they're the same dang thing.

The 350 makes 185hp and 300 lb/ft, the 305 makes 170hp and 255 lb/ft. A friend's brother has the TBI 305 in his '92 Camaro and it's not fast, but in a Brougham it doesn't matter as much because it's a luxury sedan, not a sports car. The 305 will offer better mileage than the 350 and ride softer as well.

brougham
12-06-09, 02:44 AM
Stick with the 5.7L. They have more power and a better driving car. If you're interested in it becuse it looks nicer then yours or has a lot less mileage wait until another 5.7L one comes along.

Aron9000
12-06-09, 03:34 AM
I think the 5.7 V8 in my Brougham is ungodly slow. It does great when you're just poking along in town, lots of torque. But when you get on the interstate or try to pass anybody, putting the pedal down just makes more noise and doesn't move things along any faster. I really couldn't imagine how dog slow a 305, 307 or 4100 is.

sven914
12-06-09, 03:05 PM
I think the 5.7 V8 in my Brougham is ungodly slow. It does great when you're just poking along in town, lots of torque. But when you get on the interstate or try to pass anybody, putting the pedal down just makes more noise and doesn't move things along any faster. I really couldn't imagine how dog slow a 305, 307 or 4100 is.

The way you describe your 350 is exactly how my 307 feels to me. So is there any difference? If 5.0 can only 90mph, and the 5.7 can reach 110, how does that help when you can't get past 65mph? The 350 accelerates faster, but you still can't go anywhere when your behind some one driving slower than the speed of smell.

Bottom line; it's a Cadillac. It's meant to be driven a hundred miles a year, and make you look good. As far as I'm concerned, the slower your car is, the longer it takes to drive someplace, and more time you get to spend in Cadillac luxury.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-06-09, 04:09 PM
But on the other hand, Aron has a LS1 Trans Am, so his perspective of fast is much different than ours. A 350 Brougham feels like a rocket compared to a 307.

creeker
12-06-09, 04:34 PM
In 1992 the 5.0 was fuel injected. Was the 5.0 in 1992 a 305, not a 307? I believe that is the case. I have the 1992 Brougham factory sales brochure at home and it shows the horsepower and I believe the 1992 5.0 V8 was 170 hp and the 5.7 was 185 hp. Torque was greater in the 5.7, of course. Let me know if you want me to verify those numbers when I get home. I would drive the 1992 with the 5.0. :)

1990 has the olds. 307, 91 and 92 havr the chevy. 305.

creeker
12-06-09, 04:37 PM
The way you describe your 350 is exactly how my 307 feels to me. So is there any difference? If 5.0 can only 90mph, and the 5.7 can reach 110, how does that help when you can't get past 65mph? The 350 accelerates faster, but you still can't go anywhere when your behind some one driving slower than the speed of smell.

Bottom line; it's a Cadillac. It's meant to be driven a hundred miles a year, and make you look good. As far as I'm concerned, the slower your car is, the longer it takes to drive someplace, and more time you get to spend in Cadillac luxury.

Yeh, a 5.0 would be fine for my needs too, if I go on a long highway trip I would use my 97 sts,I have been looking for a 90-92 brougham for quite awhile.

Aron9000
12-07-09, 01:01 AM
But on the other hand, Aron has a LS1 Trans Am, so his perspective of fast is much different than ours. A 350 Brougham feels like a rocket compared to a 307.

Actually it was a Z28 Camaro, but its been sold. I will say that the 350 feels ADEQUATE in the big Cadillac, but even for its day it was slow. The 4.9 V8 in a 1991 Deville or any big V8 German car from that era was significantly quicker. I wish GM had just dropped in the 350 TPI from the Corvette back in 1986, that would've made for a compellingly quick car that would've given Germany's best a good run for their money in terms of acceleration/power output.

csbuckn
12-07-09, 01:25 AM
I have to agree with Sven and Creeker. Any RWD fuel injected Cadillac should do nice except the 4.1. And, driven right, the TBI 5.0 would give you decent gas mileage. As for passing on the highway, if you cant pass with a fuel injected sbc spinning at 3500/4K rpm, the car is not running right.

dirt_cheap_fleetwood
12-07-09, 02:47 AM
I agree with Aron on power in this car. Its great for doing what it was meant to do, get a 5000lb trailer moving off the line (350 came as part of the trailer towing package). However, on the highway you are pretty much done for. My Brougham tops out at 109. It pulls decently until about 90 and then it slowly starts to fall on its face.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-07-09, 09:14 AM
I remember driving Brians '90, compared to my 4.9, it wasn't as quick, especially at hwy speeds. It felt similar when in town though.

95streamer
12-07-09, 01:13 PM
Let me put in my 2 cents,

I've had a 65 Calais
76 Fleetwood
80 Fleetwood Diesel
81 Fleetwood V8-6-4
81 Deville Diesel
81 Deville V8-6-4
84 Deville HT4100
86 Fleetwood Brougham, Olds 307
and 95 Fleetwood Brougham, LT1 with tow package

The Olds 307 is a great engine if driven modestly, can't dog it. Mine last till 198k.
The HT4100 is good on gas, but is underpowered. Main Bearing knock gets old fast, embarrassing for such a great car..
V8-6-4 works good after the Modular Displacement feature is disconnected. Good on gas, quiet.
Diesel, good torque, smelly, unreliable transmission.
76,500, not that much HP for such a huge car.
65, 429, Fast, Fast, oil consumption higher than expected. Tons of torque.
95 LT1, meant to be driven....:)

Just my 2 cents.

sven914
12-07-09, 05:10 PM
As for passing on the highway, if you cant pass with a fuel injected sbc spinning at 3500/4K rpm, the car is not running right.

Amen to that... I'm always on the open road, and it's not because all of the traffic passed me, but because I passed them.

brougham
12-07-09, 09:25 PM
Mine has no problem at speed. Hit the gas and it goes. Goto pass someone and it has no problem doing it. I wouldn't say the 4.9 is much quicker. It probably just seems that way because it revs higher.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-07-09, 09:28 PM
No, they both redline in the 4500-5000 range. The 4.9 seems quicker because it is. :) You've got 200hp pushing a car that weighs 3600 lbs, as opposed to 185hp pushing a car that weighs 4300 lbs.

brougham
12-07-09, 10:19 PM
Just because they might have the same redline doesn't mean they're both going to make the same power and speed ad the same rpm. They are also geared differently which has just as much to do with things as horsepower does. If the 4.9 is quicker it isn't by much.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-07-09, 10:34 PM
The 4.9 is quicker, but I wouldn't say it's a night and day difference. Now, the 4.9 and Northstar is a night and day difference.

brougham
12-08-09, 01:28 AM
I wouldn't even say its all that noticable and I have both. Ive never driven a northstar so I won't even say what it's like.