Ok lets comapre them inside cadillac ......

First let me tell you how this came about .....

Stoped by Ed Morse last thursday to pickup a new trunk relese solenoid ...On the way out i swung over to the used car area to check out a couple fleets they had (95 ,96).....Boath very nice , and i sat in one and looked around me , sitting in the front it feels as if the fleetwood is smaller inside than my 94 deville , espically when it comes to shoulder room . My shoulders and head felt as if they were wicked close to the B pillar . Its does have a much higher seating position (probably because its a body on frame car) and the seats are much more confortable...and of coarse THAT TRUNK!!!!!But sitting in the drivers seat the only clue this is bigger than a deville is the view towards the rear , theres a bit more back there ...But front seat passenger room looks to be the same if not smaller ...

So how do they stack up on room up front ? ie shoulde room measuremants head room leg room?

How about rear ?

Then bone stock performace ? like 94 Base Deville vs 93 Fleet
96 Concourse vs 96 fleet LT1 ? or even base 96 vs LT1 Fleet

I know deville is trumped on towing capacity , aftermarket , potential and trunkspace , just curious on what the beatter car is for the driver when its bone stock....

I'd like to say that I absolutely hate driving on frame cars, and trucks. They feel much looser and less stable. Easier to fix, and take damage better, but Unibody is my choice. 94 deville.

I found these 2 times...

1993 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham 9.2 (0-60) 16.9 (1/4)
1996 Cadillac DeVille Concours 7.2 (0-60) 15.4 (1/4)

hmm , well we can use those but we cannt comapre those two , as the fleet a year later got the lt1 ...but thats a good start !!!

need to get numbers from the 95,96 fleet and comapre that against the northsar deville , then compare the 4.9 deville against the TBI fleets

93 fleet from autoweek 2/8/93 -
base price $33,990
wheel base 121.5
length/width : 225.1/78.0
curb weight: 4418
power : 185hp/300lb ft
0-60 : 10.5 - dave where did your number come from ?
16 mpg with a range of 368.0 miles

94 Concourse (to compare against 95/96 fleet)
autoweek 4/25/94
base price: $36,590
wheelbase : 113.8
length/width: 209.7/76.6
weight 3984.6
0-60: 7.5
1/4mi: 92mph/15.6 sec
skidpad: .76g

damn too tired to go look thru the other issues ive got

besides the base price, what was price as tested for the 93? 96's were 40k. ive sat in Devilles and to me it felt like i was cramped. in my Fleetwood i feel like i have all the room in the world except head room, the Deville had it on that. but other than that the two are completely different in ride feel and size. the Deville felt smaller and my Fleetwood was huge and the Fleetwood has a boatier feel when cruising down the road, the Deville felt tighter. it was a 99 Deville i drove, i dont know what the interior room difference is if any between 94 and 99 and how the suspension is.

For speed, 96 Fleetwood's, depending on the package, can run from a 16.4 (Mine with the 2.56 rear end) to as low as probably a 15.0 on the 3.42 rear end. I came off a 97 Eldorado and in my 96 Fleetwood now. Those two are too far apart to be compared though.

Though both are good cars, the Fleetwood is definitely the better car in many ways.

To start off, the Fleetwood is longer, wider, and heavier than the Deville. Some might not consider this good, but for the true Cadillac enthusiast, the size is directly proportional to the class and prestige of the vehicle. The Fleetwood is a true full-sized luxury car and doesn't cheap out in size like the Deville. The exterior design of the Fleetwood is also superior to the Deville. The Fleetwood has a bigger grille, chrome bumpers, and chrome trim panels, as opposed to the Deville's painted plastic bumpers and relatively austere door trim. Fleetwoods also had a chrome strip along where pinstripes are often put. Fleetwoods are more likely to be seen with a customized rooftop (like vinyl or cloth), which improves the look and status of the vehicle. The ornamentation (though reduced in general from Cadillacs of the past) is a little better on the Fleetwood, like, for example, the emblem covering over the trunk keyhole and the sail panel trim. The Deville also has a stubby tail-end, which I think is less becoming on a vehicle than the longer tail-end sported by the Fleetwood. The Deville's body, though still attractive overall, suffers in general from a swelled, tubby, child-bearing look - a result of the more rounded and aerodynamic designs trends of the 1990s - which is not as severe on the Fleetwood. All Fleetwoods also had chrome-trimmed, rounded rectangular front wheel wells and rear-wheel fender skirting, which were classic Cadillac standards of beauty. The 1994-1996 Devilles had the more rectangular wheel wells and skirting, but lacked the chrome, and the 1997-1999 Deville's got rid of both, making the car appear even less ritzy than its younger counterpart (though 97-99, in my opinion, had a superior grille to 94-96). In visual beauty and presence, the Fleetwood takes out the Deville.

Interior-wise, the Fleetwood is also superior, though the Deville does win some points. The interior of the Fleetwood is bigger and more roomy (with the only exception being front headroom), especially in the width department (six people can sit more comfortably in the Fleetwood than in the Deville). The front seats are more comfortable and sit up higher and the rear seat is bigger and looks more luxurious. The Fleetwood dashboard is flat, bold, and symmetrical, as opposed to the smaller dashboard of the Deville with the lopsided bubble on the driver's side which is typical of less-prominent vehicles. The Fleetwoods have fiber optic interior light indicator which are absent on at least later Devilles. Two notable things on the Deville are its more traditional-placed and larger glove compartment and its driver display panel, which will easily display information like RPMs, engine temperature, and charge. The Fleetwood can do this, but only through the computer diagnostic mode and not at the touch of a button like the Deville. The windshield of the Fleetwood is a little excessive in angle and length, but it also serves to give the interior an even bigger feel, so it is questionable whether the Deville's more conservative windshield is better overall, though it is a little less excessive. Overall both vehicles have interiors that seem a bit cheaper in quality than Cadillacs of the past, but the Fleetwood's interior feels a bit higher quality than the Deville's. Little things, like the radio and turn signal levers feel cheaper in the Deville. Trunk space in the Fleetwood is superior to that of the Deville, and a number of Fleetwoods came with a full-sized spare, as opposed to the donut all Devilles have.

The ride of both cars are very nice and comfortable, and nearly equal, but, once again, the Fleetwood has a slight edge in my opinion. The Fleetwood rides on bigger tires and has more weight, which contributes to a little less jolt from bumps. The Fleetwood also has a body on frame design not shared by the Deville, which, in my experience, gives more of a solid feel. The weight distribution is also better. I must admit, though, I am nitpicking, since both cars have an extraordinary ride. Cornering is a little better on the Deville due to its smaller size, and handling is about equal on both. Turning is less cumbersome on the Deville, but the Fleetwood is more responsive. The Fleetwood, due to its superior size, has a little more of a commanding and cushy ride, so I have to give overall ride to the Fleetwood. The Fleetwood in my opinion, due to its size, is more fun to drive and turns more heads. The Fleetwood definitely gets more comments from people.

Mechanically things are interesting, but overall I feel this category goes to the Fleetwood as well. Fleetwoods are rear-wheel drive, which in my opinion is better because: Rear-wheel drive distributes the cars weight more evenly, it gives a tighter, more responsive pedal feel (as opposed to the spongy pedal you get from front-wheel) and the physics of it make more sense in that when you accelerate in any car the weight shifts to the rear, which with rear-wheel drive improves traction. Though the 1993 Fleetwood engine wasn't anything special, the 1994-1996 Fleetwoods had the Corvette-derived 5.7L LT1 engine, which is considered by many to be one of GM's best and most-reliable engines. The 4.9L engine of eariler Devilles is a fine engine, but not nearly as powerful as the LT1. The Northstar engine of the later models is a better match in power, but isn't as reliable of an engine over the long haul. The Northstar beats the LT1 in horsepower, but the LT1 wins in torque. Having driven both, the LT1 seems a bit faster at lower speeds, and the Northstar a bit faster at higher speeds, but there isn't really any major difference. Also note that the LT1 engine is more customizable, and its potential for more horsepower exceeds that of the Northstar. Besides being a bigger (5.7L vs 4.9L or 4.6L) and more customizable engine, the LT1 engine is cast iron, not aluminum like the Deville engines. The area under the hood of a Fleetwood is much less crowded and makes working under the hood a lot easier. The transverse engine of the Deville makes poor use of precious space and makes working under the hood a nightmare for many tasks. Both cars are reliable, but in my own experience and in reading the experiences of others, I feel that Fleetwoods are in general more reliable, encounter fewer problems, and cost the owner less in repair bills. (Please note in regards to the above, I've never driven a Concours, so my experience above is with the standard Northstar.)

There is more, but I've made my main points, and this is long-winded enough in comparison to other replies. As a final remark, the Fleetwood was GM's and Cadillac's flagship vehicle until it was discontinued in 1996. The Deville became the flagship after that, but by default and not by virtue of its comparison with the Fleetwood. The Fleetwood was more expensive, and more exclusively owned. The Fleetwood was referred to as the "Cadillac of Cadillacs", so it really isn't so surprising that the Fleetwood, Cadillac's top-of-the-line model, edges out its lesser-endowed, more affordable sibling, the Deville. The Fleetwood should be superior to the Deville by virtue of its purpose as flagship, and it is superior, hands down, in the mind of this reviewer and most classic Cadillac enthusiasts.

^ Amazing review there!

Stock, the 1994-1996 Fleetwood is bland and boring IMO.

Modified.... you can create the ultimate sleeper.


Please do not confuse the 1993 models with the '94-96. They had the L05 instead of the LT-1, which had 75 less horsepower.

When my brother had a 2003 DTS and now a 2002 STS and both of those cars could not keep up with my Fleetwood from 0-80mph (had to shut it down at 80, afraid of legal consequenses). Granted, my car is modified and his were stock.

Well, since it seems like some people are reading this, I'll throw in a bit more. First off, in the engine deparment, the LT1 beats both the 4.9 and Northstar in towing capacity. The LT1 actually beats a good amount of trucks in this department, as well.

In the gas mileage department, both vehicles get the same gas mileage, but the Fleetwood requires only 87 octane where both the 4.9 and the Northstar require at least 91 (which is harder to find, so you often have to go with 93), so the Fleetwood is actually cheaper to run in fuel (not that fuel economy is the chief concern of a Cadillac owner anyway, but every little bit helps). In addition, the fuel cap is behind the license plate on the Fleetwood, as opposed to being on the driver's side of the car on the Deville. Not only does this make fueling a lot easier since you can fuel up with the pump on either side of your vehicle, but it helps aesthetically by removing the fuel door cutout from the side of your car. I see no modern cars with the fuel cap in the back like the Fleetwood, so it is a real treat to be able to take any pump while watching others have to wait behind cars to get gas so they can be oriented on the right side of the pump.

To be fair, I should also mention something important that is, in fact, superior on the Deville, and that is that the Deville has all-wheel disc brakes, which is quite nice. The Fleetwood has rear drum brakes, and such a heavy car could have used the improved braking power of all-wheel disc brakes, not to mention their lower cost to fix.

Then braking distance is not as short as Deville ,right ? If so is there a way to convert rear brakes to disc ? When I first heard that I wouldn't believe it had rear drums as it stated
BTW-Thanks for your invaluable inputs !

Totally off topic, but.......

The FWB 93-96 was 225.1 inches long. That's almost 19 feet. I'm in a pre-war building, so it would fit in my living room and master bedroom, but that's about 4 feet bigger than a nice sized living room in a house built in 1993. Most of my friends couldn't put it in their living room, and when I parked in those neighborhoods in Queens, NY where there were "decent" houses, the damned car was longer than the houses were wide! Amazing!

Who got what wrong? Detroit, or the builders? Loved that car, love my apartment....forced to choose one in "perfect" condition...the pimpy maroon FWB with a gold kit and a banging system...2 bedroom 1400 square feet 12 foot ceilings.....hmmm......

The winner? The Fleetwood! Friends from all over said, "Beautiful apartment, oh my God, I love it" but ALL my friends from abroad took pictures of themselves in and on the car like Japanese tourists to show back in Europe, Asia, and South America.

Talk about anything America did wrong or right, what the president is lying about or sleeping with, how we're fat and lazy, but G-D, the USA is the only country that got big cars RIGHT!!!

That brings up another interesting point. Would a 93-96 Fleetwood fit in a modern garage? Two-Hundred-And-Twenty-Five inches is a lot of car to put in a garage. I thought I heard somewhere that some people were having trouble getting them to fit in their garage.

Well, my '90 is 4 inches shorter, and I have a tough time parking in my parents' garage. Another 4 inches and I don't think I'd be able to walk around it.

Speaking of garage...LOL, I would also have the same problem .However I have to say that not only FWB also too big but also Escalade EXT or ESV .I wonder a FWB supposed to be so big ?
For instance a '95 still bigger than any ESV by a few inches .I think turning circle should be more concern (if you have a big garage to park in a FBW) and makes me wonder if it's worse than an XJ40 or not ?

Actually, if you look them up, the 5.7l offered better fuel economy on regular pump, and near a half ton more weight while the 4.9 was worse despite its smaller size and requires premium! That being said, you will never lack for legroom in a Deville made after 1989, so unless you really NEED to have 6 passenger seating, or towing capacity, the 97 and up Deville's are the way to go. They have newer interiors (the FW uses 89-93 Deville interior bits), and great power from the more modern Northstar engine. I don't think interior room is a factor in either car for 4 passengers, my 91 Deville has limousine legroom for rear seat peeps even with the driver's seat all the way back. And as for size, bumper to bumper length doesn't automatically mean a 'bigger' car. To test this, I parked my 205" 91 Deville next to a new 215" Town Car, and to the naked eye both cars looked about the same in size and stature. You couldn't see the 10 inches in length until you looked at the bumpers. The Lincoln has a raked profile which extends the bumpers to make up the length difference. But I sat in a new Townie at the auto show and the interior really isn't any bigger. Cadillac has really mastered the technique of efficient space useage in the Deville. In fact, go to consumerguide.com and compare the 1990-1993 Deville to the 2007 Town Car and the 10 inch shorter Deville has MORE front AND rear legroom! 42/40.3 for the Deville and 41.7/39.6! And a 94-99 Deville has near identical interior space as a 92-96 FW despite being a full 16 inches shorter! The 94-99 Deville is only 2 inches narrower and its trunk is only 1 cubic foot smaller. Fuel economy is slightly better with the Northstar and acceleration in the lighter 94-99 Deville is a second or more better to 60, in fact the LT1 powered FW is even slower than a 4.9 powered car. Unless you really want 16 more inches of hood to stare at while driving, or you really want a 4400lb car, take the more modern Caddy, because there really isn't any comparison.

in fact the LT1 powered FW is even slower than a 4.9 powered car. Unless you really want 16 more inches of hood to stare at while driving, or you really want a 4400lb car, take the more modern Caddy, because there really isn't any comparison.

I don't know where you got that from, but the LT1 is quite faster than the 4.9...from a stop, from 30, from 60, and it's atleast 5 seconds quicker in the 0-100...20 seconds for the LT1 v. 26-27 in the 4.9. In the '94 and '95 Cadillac brochure, they quoted 0-60 times...the LT1 FWB was 8.5 and the 4.9 deVille was 9.3....so even though those times are conservative, the LT1 is still faster. And if you're concerned about ease to work on, reliability, simplicity, and cost to run, the LT1 or L05 Fleetwood is light years ahead of the 4.9 or Northstar Cadillacs.

I don't know where you got that from, but the LT1 is quite faster than the 4.9...from a stop, from 30, from 60, and it's atleast 5 seconds quicker in the 0-100...20 seconds for the LT1 v. 26-27 in the 4.9. In the '94 and '95 Cadillac brochure, they quoted 0-60 times...the LT1 FWB was 8.5 and the 4.9 deVille was 9.3....so even though those times are conservative, the LT1 is still faster. And if you're concerned about ease to work on, reliability, simplicity, and cost to run, the LT1 or L05 Fleetwood is light years ahead of the 4.9 or Northstar Cadillacs.
My mistake, I thought I had seen somewhere that a 4.9 could hit 60 in 7.5, but I know that they are quicker than 9.3. Either way, my point was that FW's were slowed by size, and weight without providing any real benefit in interior or luggage space. Northstar cars outrun the LT1 FW's easily, are much more modern, and have equal, if not more interior/luggage room. Why have an extra 16 inches of size and 500 lbs or more extra weight if it provides no benefit?

My mistake, I thought I had seen somewhere that a 4.9 could hit 60 in 7.5
More like 7.9-8.3 seconds. The LT1 FWB is just a tad bit quicker...like 7.5-7.9 seconds.


Why have an extra 16 inches of size and 500 lbs or more extra weight if it provides no benefit?

Well it does provide some benefits....more isolation, smoother ride, better towing capacity. Not to mention a 350 Brougham is soooo much easier to work on than a Northstar Cadillac.

Yes, if you need to tow, the FW is obviously the choice. But in all other aspects, including performance and fuel economy, Northstar Deville's are superior to the old-hat land barge. Naturally, for rareity and value the FW's will be collector's cars being the last of the land barge, but for every day use, 225 inches of car is hard to manoeuvre and park. I love the modern Caddy on a diet, they've packaged them to have the same luggage and interior space but much improved driveability over the old school. And most reviewers have said that the modern cars absorb bumps as well as the barges without all the excess body roll, especially if you have the CCR or MRC.

Good points, but at this point in my life, I'd still take the FWB over any 4.9 or Northstar Cadillac because they're more reliable, durable, and cheaper to fix/maintain.

I bought a 1999 Deville Concours 3 months ago as a daily driver. I sold it for profit 4 weeks later... the Front Wheel Cadillacs just do not ride like my Fleetwood Brougham, then again I did upgrade almost every complaint I had with the car.

But in all other aspects, including performance and fuel economy, Northstar Deville's are superior to the old-hat land barge.

1. FWD versus RWD. Score one for the Fleetwood
2. Reliability. N* versus L05 / LT-1. Score one for the Fleetwood
3. Ride. Unibody versus body on frame. Score one for the Fleetwood
4. Size. Subjective. Score one for which ever car you like more.
5. Upgradability. Score one for the Fleetwood.

You know, a number of people are giving the DeVille performance marks over the Fleetwood. But with the aftermarket that a D-Body can take off the Impala/Caprice B-Bodies, and the near 50/50 weight distribution, a Fleetwood could be tweaked to demolish the smaller DeVille in performance. And for braking, those rear drums still bring the big Fleetwood down to a stop mighty quick.

Also, insurance ratings have a occupant survivability on the Fleetwood as being a 32, vs the DeVille's 74 (Fleetwood wins)

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Driver Death Rates By Model - A rating of 100 is average. Lower numbers indicate vehicles that are involved in fewer fatal accidents than average, while higher numbers indicate involvement in more fatal accidents. A rating of 25, for example, represents a driver death rate of one-fourth the average, while a rating of 295 is nearly three times the average.

1993-95 Cadillac Fleetwood = 32
1992-95 Cadillac Seville = 40
1994-95 Cadillac DeVille 4-door = 74
1992-95 Cadillac Eldorado = 87

1. FWD versus RWD. Score one for the Fleetwood
2. Reliability. N* versus L05 / LT-1. Score one for the Fleetwood
3. Ride. Unibody versus body on frame. Score one for the Fleetwood
4. Size. Subjective. Score one for which ever car you like more.
5. Upgradability. Score one for the Fleetwood.
1. That depends. Unless you are truly offended by torque steer, then yes RWD is smoother in that respect. But, living in a snowy climate, I can have snow up to my bumper and pull my car out with relative ease, while Crown Vic and Caprice drivers are busy trying to shovel their cars out, and having to get all their neighbours to help push their cars loose while I happily cruise away.
2. Can't comment, haven't owned a Northstar yet, but I don't see them as being unreliable, considering Cadillac has employed them with great success for the last 13 years.
3. Unibody designs have come a long way, and are actually now stiffer than their full framed counterparts. Hence why a new Deville gets better ratings for ride than the somewhat flimsy panther platformed Fords.
4. Size. We all love our large sedans. But there is nothing wrong with efficiency in packaging. If I can get identical passenger and trunk space with less overhang, and better handling/manoueverability, I'll take it.
5. Once Cadillac starts fully implementing its new Northstar with the supercharger integrated into the intake, I don't think anybody will worry about upgrading them. 4.4L with 443 hp will be lots.

He's looking at a 4.6L Northstar which had an issue with head gaskets. As for 443 horse being lots?..... To each their own. :) I plan to see over 500 horse on my daily driver.

Onwards, the Northstar Deville and LT1 Fleetwood have similar mileage estimates.

And yes, torque steer bugs me. Plus, I don't see snow here in the sunshine state often. While you're seeing snow, I've been going out in shorts and a t-shirt. Right now, in mid to late Feb, it's 56 F out at 1 am.

The snow argument doesn't hold water. I've never had a single problem with my 85 Parisienne or my Brougham in the snow. I'd rather drive RWD in the snow, you have much better control over the vehicle.

From what I've experienced, from a dead stop, it's much easier to get a FWD car moving in heavy snow then it is a RWD car.

Yes, I khow this is a Caddy forum but the 94-96 Impala SS is an awesome car. It has a heavy duty suspension, 4 wheel disks, and LSD. The down side is the interior is CHEAP, the door panels squeek like a mofo!!

Yes, I khow this is a Caddy forum but the 94-96 Impala SS is an awesome car. It has a heavy duty suspension, 4 wheel disks, and LSD. The down side is the interior is CHEAP, the door panels squeek like a mofo!!

Heh... that seemed to be any 90's GM minus Cadillac and high dollar Buick/Olds.

I saw a calypso green (teal...my favorite color for those cars) LT1 Brougham in *mint* condition yesterday. I got a feeling looking at that car, in that color, in that condition that not many other cars have ever given me. It was the ultimate attention grabber as far as I was concerned. I was thinking about parking my deVille next to it for some impromptu pics...

i got a 97 deville and i always beat my friends 94 fleetwood in a race

I want one of each another Fleetwood and my 98 Deville. I used to have 2 cars, it's nice to have one to get parts for the other when working on it. I like good used highly depreciated in value Cadillacs, they are the best car for the money, comfort and safety and decent gas mileage. TexasCadillac :)