: Composite vs. Sealed beam front end poll



Angry Matt
08-11-10, 07:10 PM
There's always comments on what is the more popular front end of our beloved '80's and early '90's Broughams/Devilles. Just for fun I'd like to see which is the most liked here on the forum.

77CDV
08-11-10, 07:15 PM
Like I said in your first attempt at this: sealed beams. Composites look bug-eyed.

Stingroo
08-11-10, 07:20 PM
^ What he said. I don't like the composite headlights on anything from this era. Cutlasses, Broughams, DeVilles, whatever. Sealed beams are the way to go.

sven914
08-11-10, 07:27 PM
I believe there's no question where my alliances lie.

YourMainParadox
08-11-10, 08:37 PM
you can always upgrade the sealed beams with the H4 housings.

jayoldschool
08-11-10, 08:54 PM
It's funny. When I started the search for my coupe, I was determined to "90" it with the composite headlight header, etc. Once I got it and really started to appreciate the styling, I found I prefer the old style.

Angry Matt
08-11-10, 09:27 PM
I'm kind of in the same boat. All I ever wanted was a '90 FWBC, now I've got all I need to create the car I've always wanted but can't bare to disassemble such a nice piece of history. I do dislike the eggcrate grill though, 90's my favorite in that department.

On another note, I just scored a pair of rear bumper guards,:thumbsup: not my favorite look, but they were on my car from the dealer and still have the marks so it's only right..

csbuckn
08-11-10, 10:31 PM
I just dont get it. Here's a good comparison(apples to apples)Take a look:
http://i935.photobucket.com/albums/ad196/csbuckn/molon_crash-1.jpg
http://i935.photobucket.com/albums/ad196/csbuckn/91cad08.jpg
To me, the 90 and up front looks way better.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
08-11-10, 10:56 PM
1990-92 for me. The sealed beam headlights look very dated by 1990's standards, and the composites were a great way to transition a '70s design into the '90s. To me, the composites make the front end appear a lot cleaner and smoother. I do however, like the 1981/87-88 egg crate style grill. The 1990-92 "waterfall" style looks great as well, only because the vertical slats stick out farther than the horizontal ones do, which makes the grille it's self look taller when viewed dead on, while it makes it appear more aggressive when viewed in profile.

sven914
08-12-10, 12:37 AM
I just dont get it. Here's a good comparison(apples to apples)Take a look:
http://i935.photobucket.com/albums/ad196/csbuckn/molon_crash-1.jpg

To me, the 90 and up front looks way better.

That car still looks beautiful and tough enough to school any other car on the road. Much more so than the other one, which looks like an old lady, who just saw a rat.

Sure my car is weak willed, and last month I lost a race to some geezer in a Grand Marquis, but at least it looks like it has cojones. Most of the Euro cars have that all powerful 350, which gives them the cojones, but they get no respect because they look like they're afraid of everything; afraid of anything above a brisk drive through the park. If you could equate cars to humans, the '89 and lesser Cadillac would be like the ungodly manchild of Sean Connery and Chuck Norris, where the Euro Brougham would the spawn of Sarah Palin and Carol Channing.

Beat that logic...

I~LUV~Caddys8792
08-12-10, 12:48 AM
The composite headlights give it more of a Rolls Royce/Bentley look as well.

Aron9000
08-12-10, 02:38 AM
The composite headlights give it more of a Rolls Royce/Bentley look as well.

Agreed!!!!

I think the euro lights really clean up the styling. The front maw on the 80-89 cars tends to look a little busy IMO. Although those crest with wings emblems below the headlights are pretty pimp.

Bro-Ham
08-12-10, 02:44 AM
I think you're nuts to compare to a RR - I had a 1984 RR which I had fitted both the composite and the original quad sealed beams - the classic is the sealed beams - very All-American. :)

csbuckn
08-12-10, 03:07 AM
Sure my car is weak willed, and last month I lost a race to some geezer in a Grand Marquis, but at least it looks like it has cojones. Most of the Euro cars have that all powerful 350, which gives them the cojones, but they get no respect because they look like they're afraid of everything; afraid of anything above a brisk drive through the park. If you could equate cars to humans, the '89 and lesser Cadillac would be like the ungodly manchild of Sean Connery and Chuck Norris, where the Euro Brougham would the spawn of Sarah Palin and Carol Channing.

Beat that logic...

:cookoo:but I can dig it.
http://i935.photobucket.com/albums/ad196/csbuckn/1988brougham1.jpg

Bro-Ham
08-12-10, 03:20 AM
The classic original is the old school American way. I hate to think of what all the bowing to Euro trends led the American car industry to... :)

Aron9000
08-12-10, 05:43 AM
The classic original is the old school American way. I hate to think of what all the bowing to Euro trends led the American car industry to... :)

Hey, its not all bad. Our American cars now handle/steer reasonably well, something that cannot be said back in the 70's/early 80's. I love my big Cadillac's overboosted steering, but it would be nice if it weren't so damn numb on center. My Z28 is much easier to keep pointed on a straight line down the interstate, despite its mongo wide 275 series tires.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
08-12-10, 08:04 AM
I'm also sure that when they went to the "euro style" (god I hate that name, it sounds so ricer) headlights in '90, the headlights were more powerful and better aimed so night time visibility improved.

caddeville89
08-12-10, 08:14 AM
I like both. The '90 clip has that sleek, cleaner look, but the sealed beams look more formal, specially with the parking lights with the wings. If I wanted to "'90" my '89, I might replace the rear clip, but I would probably leave the sealed beams.

jayoldschool
08-12-10, 02:40 PM
I'm also sure that when they went to the "euro style" (god I hate that name, it sounds so ricer) headlights in '90, the headlights were more powerful and better aimed so night time visibility improved.

Quite the opposite, actually. The 9004 bulb puts out far less lumens than a halogen sealed beam. Especially true when on high beams. It was all about the look.

sven914
08-12-10, 03:24 PM
^Was that another nail I just heard, being hammered into the Euro coffin?

csbuckn
08-12-10, 04:23 PM
^no way. I think that by all the swaps and the price of euro clips, they are more popular. Just not with the people that have voted. Nobody is swapping to the older style. I think we all know that the euro clip is more popular. The first step to recovery is to admit. ;)

abdullahone
08-12-10, 04:39 PM
IMHO > 90-92 'euro' style beats the aged sealed beams any day. Hand down!

jayoldschool
08-12-10, 05:49 PM
90-92 'euro' style beats the aged sealed beams any day

The styling is SUPPOSED to be "aged". It debuted 31 years ago!

CBodyFan
08-12-10, 08:04 PM
The composite headlights were installed on the car for the sake of change (along with those wide vinyl bodyside mouldings) and nothing more. The front end was designed for sealed beams and looks better that way. Personnally I prefer sealed beams because they add surface interest, a little bit of detailing and personality to the car's face.

Laneseja
08-12-10, 08:47 PM
I really love the euro styled headlights and the updated tail lights and body cladding. The car maintained a classic look with a more modern look that brought it up to date. They only made the euro styled look for three years and marked the end of the body run(12 years with the same body style)I put Silverstar Ultra headlight bulbs in my 1991 Brougham and the headlights are very bright. I vote for the euro style as my favorite

I~LUV~Caddys8792
08-12-10, 08:55 PM
I hate to go back on myself, but the more I think about it, the more I've come to realize I'd buy either 77-89 or 90-92 Brougham, and it doesn't matter to me what front clip is on it. What does matter however is the engine below the hood and the 90-92 has the best motors, combined with the most modern amenities. I suppose if the 86-89 Broughams offered the 350 or even a 305, then I'd like them a lot more, but since I'm all about keeping it OEM stock, any sealed beam headlamp Brougham is gonna have the weaker engine, so given the choice between a mint '87 Brougham D'Elegance or a mint '92 Brougham D'Elegance, I'd go with the '92.

MudAnt
08-12-10, 08:55 PM
I think the car looks a lot bigger and wider with the sealed-beams. The euro lights are out of scale with the front end and make the car looks smaller.

brougham
08-12-10, 10:18 PM
1990-1992. Best years and best look. The quad headlights make the front look clunky and old and the thin strip of door molding down the sides doesn't help much either. The 80s ones look like a big slow Cadillac. The 1990 restyle makes it look like it could take on any car and the better drivetrain means it can.

csbuckn
08-12-10, 11:18 PM
aww shucky ducky. Composite comes back with two solid blows. I think MudAnt hit it right on the spot.

Bro-Ham
08-13-10, 12:29 AM
I think the 90-92 Brougham is a 80-89 in drag. The true classic is the 77-79 with real engines, lean elegant styling, and interesting interior and exterior colors. :)

I~LUV~Caddys8792
08-13-10, 12:43 AM
I prefer the squared off roofline of the 80+. It just looks so much more formal to me than the slightly slanted 77-79.

csbuckn
08-13-10, 12:49 AM
I like the interior of the 77-79, especially with the bench seats. But like Chad said...the back window angle goes so far against the other angles, it turns me off. Then the front grill area is a bit too small. Take that Bro-Ham;)

But it did lead the way to one of the greatest designs in D-body history...the 90-92 Brougham!

mjs182004
08-13-10, 12:56 AM
My vote is for the 90-92's

The-Dullahan
08-13-10, 01:04 AM
80's for the win. the grille was DESIGNED to have the 80's style lights, the 90's ones just look like they are sad and need to be put down. Aside from that, the 90's had ****-ugly backsides with ridiculous-looking tail light lenses. Interestingly, the reflective bumper strips are probably the worst feature the car EVER had, but the two red reflective strips on the back of the trunk are nearly as hideous. If my car had them, they'd have been removed within ten minutes of purchase...and let's not get started on those in-door seatbelts, because that will open a whole new can of worms.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
08-13-10, 01:04 AM
I've always been especially fond for the 1979's. I like the egg-crate grille, 425 power, super ostentatious D'Elegance interiors and light burl woodgrain trim.

Bro-Ham
08-13-10, 01:12 AM
Just leave the nice 77-79 Cads all to me then. :)

sven914
08-13-10, 01:24 AM
I like the '78 and '79 Sedans. The '77's are alright, but that half tail light deal is a huge turn off and sorta gives the rear end that Oldsmobile feel. The Coupes for those three years are my least liked RWD body design; the harsh slant of the C-pillar and the gapping opera window ruin the feel of the car.

For me, the '78 and '79 Sedan de Ville and Fleetwood Brougham still maintain that elegance of design seen in the '74-'76 Cadillacs, combined with a cleaner and sleeker profile, to be seen on Cadillac RWDs during the 1980's. Being that most people (or at least those I've talked to) group the '77 and the '80 into the same generation, saying that the '80 cars were only a face lift or an update for a new decade, you could say the sealed beam is the eleventh gen's legacy, and the '90ed cars were the second face lift on a dated design. None of this debate would have happened if Cadillac had just made the last gen in 1990.

l
l +What he said...
V

Bro-Ham
08-13-10, 01:31 AM
I like the overall exterior appearance of the 77. I'm with Chad that the 79 d'Elegance interiors are over the top and sublime. You can't beat the smoothness, drivabilty, and durability of the genuine old school real Cadillac 425.

I think 77-79 styling is lean and athletic compared to the 80-89 which is a faux 77-79, and, to my eye, a 90-92 is more of a fancy Caprice than a Cadillac with Chevy engines to boot plus those funny seatbelts. My 3 cents. :)

77CDV
08-13-10, 03:12 AM
:cookoo:but I can dig it.
http://i935.photobucket.com/albums/ad196/csbuckn/1988brougham1.jpg

I really like that car! What color is that? :drool:

brougham
08-13-10, 03:21 AM
I don't see where the grille fits in. It looks just as good on the 80s ones as it does on the 90s ones. The 77-79 ones are the worst of the bunch. Plainer sides and the roof line of every other GM. Some of the colours were kinda neat but there's a reason why they stopped using them.

77CDV
08-13-10, 03:22 AM
I like the '78 and '79 Sedans. The '77's are alright, but that half tail light deal is a huge turn off and sorta gives the rear end that Oldsmobile feel. The Coupes for those three years are my least liked RWD body design; the harsh slant of the C-pillar and the gapping opera window ruin the feel of the car.

Aw, c'mon, Sven! How can you not like this!

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa237/cmchally/2010%20All%20GM%20Show/062.jpg

Oldsmobile, indeed! :annoyed:

Warren_R
08-13-10, 03:46 AM
I'm voting what Craig, Sting, & Bro-Ham said :bouncy: :highfive:

I~LUV~Caddys8792
08-13-10, 08:55 AM
See, to me, the Brougham as a whole improved in 1990. Not just the composite headlights and new front clip, but the digital dash with it's relocated and far more accurate fuel gauge was far easier to read and looked better than the antiquated 85mph speedometer and tiny centrally located fuel gauge. Then there's the bigger engines that were more powerful AND more reliable, combined with the throttle body fuel injection which made them more fuel efficient and easier to live with in the cold weather up here. Being simple Chevy small blocks, parts are easily accessible and almost anybody can work on them, and if you'd like to you can modify them very easily as well. Sure beats the Olds 307. Can't argue against the Cadillac 425 though, as it's a true Cadillac V-8 and put out good power back in it's day, and heck those were even available with TBI as well! The 305/350 will put out much better mileage than the 425 though, and to most of us, that matters nowadays. The only other real downside I can see to the 425 is parts availability, but maybe it's not as bad as I'd think for a motor being out of production since 1979...

With the '90, I also prefer the revised interior trim to the older models. I prefer the smoother, non-pleated, door panels on the base 90-92's to the base 80-89 models. It looks a lot cleaner and less cluttered, plus that "Brougham" script in there looks really classy. I also really like how the 90-92's have the revised, richer looking faux wood grain trim, and how it hides all the idiot lights in that top band of strip above the speedometer, so they're invisible unless they're illuminated. Now that's just cool! I also prefer the 90-92 tail lights, with the silver inserts, now that's just plain classy! It's a nice freshening of a classic style that was much needed after 13 years of production. The body-side moldings on the 90-92 really compliment the length and profile of the car, and make it look less monotonous and more imposing without seeming garish.

But, the HT4100 and V 8-6-4 Broughams had one cool thing that the later ones never did....the fuel economy computer! I understand why they never put that into the 307 models, but with the TBI setup on the 1990-92's, it would have been very easy to adapt that back in. I suppose they didn't just to cut costs.

Someone previously mentioned that Cadillac should have introduced the 1993 style Brougham in 1990 to match the Town Car. Was that a possibility back then? Was it late to be introduced?

robb257731
08-13-10, 09:38 AM
I prefer the 90's look....it's what 'wowed' me as a teenager and made me think "I'm going to own one of those some day." That being said, it wasn't JUST the headlights, it was the addition of the thick lower trim that really completed the deal.

The quad lights are okay too, but like someone said up above, it's kind of cluttered looking, especially if you have the egg crate grill.

Cadillacboy
08-13-10, 11:58 AM
Definitely '80-89 style for me .

However for the rear tail lights that's a different story :D

The-Dullahan
08-13-10, 01:08 PM
Why was BOTH even an option? If it's about preference, they just......sigh...There's a reason they don't do that in presidential elections, Lads.

bicentennialcadillac
08-13-10, 03:14 PM
The composite designs are out of place on these cars, just like the mongo radio, digital cluster, door-mounted belts and the mismatched fonts.

The Chevrolet motors are an improvement over the Olds and HT4100 cars, but nothing compares to the Cadillac BB.

sven914
08-13-10, 06:05 PM
Someone previously mentioned that Cadillac should have introduced the 1993 style Brougham in 1990 to match the Town Car. Was that a possibility back then? Was it late to be introduced?

There's no reason why it shouldn't have been possible. The '93 Fleetwood brought no new technology to the table; pretty much everything from the engine to the chassis was used in 1990. If Cadillac had been on their game back then, and not wasting so much time promoting the front wheel drive, then they would have introduced the '93 in 1990, as a direct competitor to the Town Car.

The second generation Town Car was completly redesigned, which gave Lincoln Motor Trend's Car of the year award, something Cadillac hadn't received since 1952. By offering the Fleetwood or the Brougham or what ever they would have called it in 1990, with a completly new look, and a 5.7 liter engine (against Lincoln's 4.9 "5" liter), Cadillac would have stayed dominant in RWD cars for the rest of the decade. Offering the last gen three years earlier might have saved the Cadillac RWD, and by today we might have had the 2011 Fleetwood Brougham. But we'll never know now will we...

I~LUV~Caddys8792
08-13-10, 07:03 PM
Kinda, but not exactly. One of the GM execs at the time (I think it was that moron Roger Smith) said that the Caprice/Roadmaster/Fleetwood would be "built over his dead body", so the fact that we got them at all is something we should be grateful for.

I thought about the '80s Broughams this morning, and I've got a good friend that's had both the '86-89 Town Car and an 87 & 88 Brougham and he always said that he prefers the '80s Town Cars; they've got more power, better steering feel, and more digital toys. The Brougham is the better looker, but I'd agree with him on that, especially in terms of power, that MPFI 302 is so much better than the 307. Anyways, point of story is that between an '88 Town Car Signature Series and an '88 Brougham D'Elegance, I'd take the Lincoln. But after the '90 refreshing and body style change, I'd definitely take the Cadillac, all the way through 1996.

Angry Matt
08-13-10, 07:34 PM
Why was BOTH even an option?

Because this is what my driveway looks like. I'm honestly undecided on the matter.

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af161/georgesrose/Cars/P8030132.jpg

I~LUV~Caddys8792
08-13-10, 08:14 PM
Those BIG headlamps on the 90-92 definitely look more bold & powerful than the smaller 80-89 ones, and I like how they smoothly incorporate the parking lamps into them, which makes them look even more bold.

Bro-Ham
08-13-10, 11:47 PM
Chad, all you said makes me think of the 90 B-Ham d'Ele I had - digital dash failed, it had the dreaded check engine light, and I don't care how simple a Chevy engine is I don't care for one in my Cadillac, plus I thought the plastic cladding looked cheap and tacked on. No one wants to talk about what the deal is with those aweful seatbelts that somehow got moved to the front doors. When I had my seat back I could hardly see around them out the side windows. Everyone has their cup of tea. P.S.: Craig, you have a very sexy, long, low, lean, and lovely car! :)

Bro-Ham
08-13-10, 11:53 PM
Chad, I didn't read you last post before my post above - your interpretation of bold on the 90-92 is, to my eye, trying too hard. These cars should be gentlmanly, they're big and imposing as they are and the big bug eyes may have been better for 1984 than 1990, and the 93-96 should have been out in 1986 and dead in 1989 or 90. Talk about stirring the pot. ;)

77CDV
08-14-10, 01:00 AM
Kinda, but not exactly. One of the GM execs at the time (I think it was that moron Roger Smith) said that the Caprice/Roadmaster/Fleetwood would be "built over his dead body", so the fact that we got them at all is something we should be grateful for.



It was his minion, Roger Stemple, who said that. That mindset was why the RWD cars were left to languish as long as they did. Smith/Stemple desparately wanted them gone, but they were such an easy sell and offered crazy huge profit margins, the dealers sqwaked. In fact, the 1993 FWB should have been introduced in 1985, when the FWD C-cars first hit the market as early '86s. It would have made some sense: a smaller, more contemporary DeVille and a larger, more formal and traditional Fleetwood. I'll brace myself as Dave shudders at the thought of an '86 Deville. :lol:


No one wants to talk about what the deal is with those aweful seatbelts that somehow got moved to the front doors. When I had my seat back I could hardly see around them out the side windows. Everyone has their cup of tea. P.S.: Craig, you have a very sexy, long, low, lean, and lovely car! :)

Thanks for the compliment! :) Those door-mounted seatbelts were one of the worst examples of government-mandated "safety" EVER! Car crashes, door pops...VIOLA! No shoulder restraint! What a galactically stupid idea! It was basically the gov't saying, "You vill haf airbags, und you vill LIKE IT! Und if you don't, ve haf vays to make you like it."

Aron9000
08-14-10, 01:52 AM
The only real reason I wanted a 90-92 Brougham over an 80's model were the more powerful fuel injected engines. I've never owned a carburated car and don't know how to work on one. Carburators were awesome before we had emission laws, but man they suck donkey balls on smog era V8's. 145hp out of a 307 olds V8, 0-60 in 13 seconds, still bad gas mileage, still an electronic control unit:pwn:

Styling wise, I can appreciate them both, don't really have a favorite. Although I am a bit more partial to the digital dash in the 90-92. Wouldn't have a problem with the old dash if the speedo went past 85mph, there was a 6 digit odometer, and both of them really need a temp gauge.

greencadillacmatt
08-14-10, 02:32 AM
Why was BOTH even an option? If it's about preference, they just......sigh...There's a reason they don't do that in presidential elections, Lads.

I voted both. I think that the 90+ redesign cars look amazing with the composites, and that the 80's cars look just as good with the sealed beams. I think the sealed beams look better on the older stuff and that the composites look good with all of the little tweaks that they did in the 90+ cars.
Just my opinion though. :D

sven914
08-14-10, 02:58 AM
Is it just me, or does that Brougham look like it wants to pimp slap that de Ville?

csbuckn
08-14-10, 03:27 AM
slap the headlights right off of it. But yea, that grill looks more shiny than most new rims I see.

brougham
08-14-10, 05:16 AM
By 1996 RWD Cadillacs were dead. If they started with the 1993 Fleetwoods in 1990 they would have just disappeared from the sales books 3 years sooner then they did.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
08-14-10, 09:45 AM
Funny how much that's changed in 15 years, now the FWD stuff is dead aside from the DTS... And that doesn't have much time left.

bicentennialcadillac
08-14-10, 07:25 PM
Those door-mounted seatbelts were one of the worst examples of government-mandated "safety" EVER! Car crashes, door pops...VIOLA! No shoulder restraint! What a galactically stupid idea!

Don't forget, the door placement also put the belts square into the deteriorating rays of the sun.

bicentennialcadillac
08-14-10, 07:34 PM
By 1996 RWD Cadillacs were dead. If they started with the 1993 Fleetwoods in 1990 they would have just disappeared from the sales books 3 years sooner then they did.

Cadillac buyers didn't turn away from opulent, overbuilt, uncompromising machines - Cadillac just quit building them after 1981.

Meanwhile, despite the fact that they haven't built a decent car since the W126, Mercedes continues to sell big RWD machines with great success.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
08-14-10, 08:24 PM
Don't forget, the door placement also put the belts square into the deteriorating rays of the sun.

Are the 90-92 door mounted seatbelts really that more uncomfortable than the older style?


Cadillac buyers didn't turn away from opulent, overbuilt, uncompromising machines - Cadillac just quit building them after 1981.

Meanwhile, despite the fact that they haven't built a decent car since the W126, Mercedes continues to sell big RWD machines with great success.

Literally the only thing between the 1981 & 82 RWD Cadillacs was the HT4100 v. the 368 V 8-6-4, and to be perfectly honest, that 8-6-4 didn't exactly have a stellar reputation either. Yeah they were the last of the Cadillac-built big blocks, but maybe 25% of them actually worked right after a few years, and they weren't all that much more powerful than the HT4100's.....145 hp v. 125/135, and a bit more torque. So it's not like they went from this all-star amazing barn burner of an engine to that putrid HT4100 overnight. Aside from that, and the annual grille & trim change, the 82 Cadillacs weren't different at all from the '81s, so to say that after 1981 no Cadillacs were opulent, overbuilt and uncompromising doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

BTW, coming from the Benz camp, many would argue that the W140 was an improvement over the W126 in terms of comfort, amenities and overall ownership satisfaction. Once the W220 got straightened out in '03, they had some of the most powerful engines in existence, and when the W221 rolled out in '07, they got back into their heavy, over engineered cars built to stand the test of time, plus they had further penetration into the sporty end of the market with the V-12 powered S600, and two different AMG models at any given time.

bicentennialcadillac
08-14-10, 10:23 PM
Are the 90-92 door mounted seatbelts really that more uncomfortable than the older style?

Comfort isn't all that different, but they as pointed out the design in ridiculously compromised from a safety standpoint.


Literally the only thing between the 1981 & 82 RWD Cadillacs was the HT4100 v. the 368 V 8-6-4.

No more big rear end. No more truck-rated THM. The drivetrain as a whole was gutted - the cars went from overbuilt to fragile as glass.


... to say that after 1981 no Cadillacs were opulent, overbuilt and uncompromising doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Consider what a Cadillac Fleetwood was in 1965, in 1971, in 1977. What it meant to bring one home, versus buying a new Fleetwood in 1993.

This is more a criticism of GM in general I suppose.

As to the Benz, it just doesn't get better than 1979-92 for me. Opinions, everyone has one.

jayoldschool
08-15-10, 12:19 AM
1981 Cadillac brochure pic. Pure class.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c40/Cadillac_guy/1981_Cadillac-08.jpg

77CDV
08-15-10, 12:46 AM
^Want.

Aron9000
08-15-10, 04:11 AM
^Want.

I want his damn wide whitewall tires.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
08-15-10, 04:59 AM
I do however love the 1981 Cadillac lineup. I love the egg-crate grille, the (reasonably) powerful 368, the fuel economy computer, and if I'm not mistaken, 81 was the first year they offered the digital climate control, with push buttons instead of the previous temp wheel & lever for mode.

Aron9000
08-15-10, 09:04 AM
I do however love the 1981 Cadillac lineup. I love the egg-crate grille, the (reasonably) powerful 368, the fuel economy computer, and if I'm not mistaken, 81 was the first year they offered the digital climate control, with push buttons instead of the previous temp wheel & lever for mode.

Disabling that dreaded cylinder deactiavtion system is just one wire clip away. Or so I am told. With that big 368cu V8 firing on all 8 cylinders, its fairly reliable and strong enough to move these big Cadillacs out of their own damn way, even if it isn't very fast.

Bro-Ham
08-15-10, 08:31 PM
I think 1981 was the beginning of the end for Cadillac. By the way, I had a 1981 FWBH Coupe and had the rear end rebuilt and was told it was the same as a Caprice of the same era - different from earlier year Cadillacs - whether this is right or not I don't know for sure. I have to say that I'm thankful my 79 Cad is bold where it counts: the rock solid indestructible driveline. :)

Laneseja
08-15-10, 08:37 PM
I had the 368 in my 1980 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham, the only year I think, they were available without the 8-6-4 set up, and I still think it was the nicest running and most quiet engine from all the "80's" Broughams I had. I sold the car with 158,000 miles on the original engine transmission and it continued to run great for a few years after despite the moron who I sold the car to racing it and burning rubber with it and eventually beating it down in some farm field in Ohio and then setting fire to it. I wish I never sold him the car, I still feel bad about it 12 years later.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
08-15-10, 09:06 PM
What a piece of shit. I'd still be kicking my self in the ass for that as well.

MudAnt
08-16-10, 12:09 AM
I sold the car with 158,000 miles on the original engine transmission and it continued to run great for a few years after despite the moron who I sold the car to racing it and burning rubber with it and eventually beating it down in some farm field in Ohio and then setting fire to it. I wish I never sold him the car, I still feel bad about it 12 years later.

How do you know he did that? Did he live nearby?

sven914
08-16-10, 01:26 AM
By 1996 RWD Cadillacs were dead. If they started with the 1993 Fleetwoods in 1990 they would have just disappeared from the sales books 3 years sooner then they did.

Not necessarily... If you look at Lincoln, which based on annual production numbers has always been behind Cadillac, you might note the continued popularity of the Town Car. The Town Car, introduced in 1981, became Lincoln's best selling vehicle is 1982. In 1983, Town Car sales surpassed the Fleetwood Brougham with a score of 53,281 to 43,500, and after that the (Fleetwood) Brougham never recovered in sales. In '88 the Town Car even outsold the de Ville line for that year.

But Cadillac as a whole has outsold Lincoln every year since 1942 (at least). If Cadillac has alway been doing better, than why was Cadillac dead in '96? Why is Lincoln still making rear wheel drive luxury sedans, which can be compared in prestige to their earlier counterparts? The answer is because Lincoln changed with the times by offering newer amenities as they became available, and not allowing the line to go stagnant. As much as I love everything about my Cadillac (for it's grand Obsoleteness), it should have been fuel injected, had digital instrumentation, and a Compact Disk player; all optional or standard on the '87 Town Car.

I reiterate; Cadillac should have introduced the last gen earlier. It would have revived the Fleetwood line and brought needed new interest into Cadillac. By 1990, up-grading the Brougham with fancy new gadgets, a better engine, and a new facade for the old sheet metal, was like beating a dead horse. Interest was gone and the up-grade saw 10,000 less sales than there were in '89. You say Cadillac was dead in 1996, I say it was mortally wounded in 1990...

brougham
08-16-10, 04:13 AM
If they made the new Fleetwoods sooner sales probably would have gone up a bit and then they would have dropped again after a couple years just like what happened. So Fleetwood gone before 1996 just like I said. And that's if it even sold. If people weren't ready yet for the rounded Caprice/Roadmaster whale in 1990 it could have had even less sales and had its plug pulled before it's 4 years were up.
Lincoln is still making RWD cars, or was, because Ford was. You can't compare Town Car sales because there wasn't much choice there- if you wanted a 4 door Lincoln you were stuck with a crappy Continental or a Town Car. If you were after a Cadillac there were twice as many to choose from. Yeah Town Cars were around past 1996 and sold well because Ford was actually spending time and money on them but that doesn't have anything to do with this topic.

sven914
08-16-10, 04:35 AM
This could be debated to death. Change any variable and the outcome is completly different as there are an unlimited number of alternate possibilities and the only certainty is what has already happened. You make good points based on what has been proven with Cadillac; I'm arguing that Lincoln could be used as the model of an alternative outcome.

bicentennialcadillac
08-16-10, 10:04 AM
If Cadillac had continued to plow resources into the Fleetwood Brougham line and given us a proper successor to the '77 car way sooner, perhaps they would today have a modern RWD barge program in line with M-B S-Class and Jaguar XJ. Instead, Fleetwood Brougham began to lose content in '78, and after a brief resurgence with the '79 de'Elegance models, never really competed as 'Standard of the World' again.

For ~75 years, Cadillac did big luxury saloons better than anyone outside of Goodwood, England. Then they gave up.

bicentennialcadillac
08-16-10, 10:13 AM
You could reasonably argue that the end came for a truly range-topping FWB in ~1970, when the tray tables and real wood were deleted. But you still had an exclusive body, exclusive wheelbase, footrests, options like Track-Master and such until '77, when the wheelbase was lost, and then '78, when the vestigal footrests, map lights and rocker window switches bit the dust. Once the sheetmetal became identical to deVille in 1980, it was all over for FWB, but the cars were at least competent until the HT-4100 fiasco of '82 and later.

jayoldschool
08-16-10, 01:23 PM
lol, this thread went from 5 stars to three overnight. Maybe I should start a poll on locking it :D

Bro-Ham
08-16-10, 06:22 PM
Just imagine a 2011 updated version of a 77 Fleetwood Brougham. I'd even be OK if it had composite headlights. :)

sven914
08-16-10, 07:05 PM
There has to be more than 27 people in this forum. Anyone else have an opinion?

I~LUV~Caddys8792
08-16-10, 09:01 PM
I think that GM's fault in the early death of the B/D bodies was caused by a lack of advertising and management that was dead-set on FWD and really didn't give a shit about the B/D bodies. Stempel didn't want to refresh them in the early '90s, but they did anyways, but have any of you seen magazine advertisements or commercials for them? I don't remember anything, but I do know that FoMoCo still made a lot of effort with the TC/GM/CV, and it paid off, even though they weren't as well equipped as the GM's in a number of areas. They sold a lot of them up until the early '00s, when that whole "green" movement took off and big "selfish" cars were a faux pas.

I blame management. If they put more effort into designing a car that was more competitive with it's competition, along with the Imports, along with properly advertising them, we wouldn't be in this small/FWD fiasco we are now.

Bro-Ham
08-17-10, 12:04 AM
The real problem was the 1990 Brougham was basically an old fashioned car in an age of increasingly sophisticated competitors. The Cadillac of 1977 was owned by trendsetters. The Cadillac of the 1990's catered to geriatric and blue collar folks who still bought into the romance of the Cadillac legend which had evaporated ten years before. I think the 1990's Cadillacs were aimed at a dead market that was past it's prime in ability to be attractive to a new generation of car drivers who demanded more than Cadillac was able or willing to create or produce. Damn bean counters... :)

csbuckn
08-17-10, 01:58 AM
the 1990 Brougham was basically an old fashioned car in an age of increasingly sophisticated competitors.

Well said. The Lincoln Towncar went from box to bubble in 1990, Caprice in 91. The Brougham was two or three years behind. Ah, well. I still have faith that Cadillac will come out with another Brougham.

It would be nice to see some more votes.

jayoldschool
08-17-10, 05:08 PM
We're back up to four stars.

:D

AElayyat
08-19-10, 09:37 AM
The 80's front clip is not bad, but I think the 90's front clip looks "cleaner". I have both styles & personally like the "updates" made to the 90-92's.

sven914
08-19-10, 10:51 AM
There is one thing I like about the Brougham Euro; the woodgrain plastic. It's more vibrant and detailed than earlier years and with it running along the tell-tale, it's much more abundant. I recently came across a '90 in a junkyard and would have taken the all of the woodgrain, if there hadn't been large pieces missing.