: Finding the right Fleetwood



Rick James
08-30-11, 01:23 PM
On my quest for a FW I am curious if thee is an opinion as to buy an OBD 1 or 2 car? Anyone have a comments?

If I wanted a compression check on a FW, is this nearly impossible? Or rather have I read correctly in some posts that changing the spark plugs are very difficult thus a compression check is very difficult?

Thanks for any help you all can provide.

Stingroo
08-30-11, 01:30 PM
Some say OBD 1 is better, because early OBD 2 is buggy. I wouldn't know on that front.

My opinion though, look for 95-96 over '94, because the revised door mirrors are significantly better for visibility.

outsider
08-30-11, 01:39 PM
I prefer the ODB1 because you can pull codes up through the climate control system. I've heard that with ODBII you can't do this.

I just did my plugs and wires on my 95 and it was not easy but by far the hardest part was the wires, not the plugs. I got every one of the plugs from the top of the engine. It was a little tricky but i did it. Compression check shouldn't be all that hard.

turbojimmy
08-30-11, 03:27 PM
If you're not going to modify the engine, OBD-I vs. OBD-II doesn't matter much. Here in NJ, OBD-II cars don't go through a sniff test. They just plug into the PCM and check for codes. If you've tuned out certain emissions checks (OBD-II tuners are easy to come by) then you can get a pretty highly modified car through emissions. You can tune an OBD-I PCM, but OBD-I cars are subject to tailpipe emissions testing (in NJ anyway).

I had a '96 and now have a '94. There's no perceptible difference between the two as far as performance goes. The engines are pretty much identical. The '96 has 2 more O2 sensors to satisfy OBD-II downstream emissions reporting requirements as well as 2 knock sensors (vs. the '94-'95 single knock sensor).

You can pull trouble codes from the HVAC system on the '94-95s, but not the '96. OBD-II code scanners are cheap these days, though, and give you a lot more information than the OBD-I codes.

And I didn't find my '96 mirrors to be any better than the '94's. Yeah, they're different, but the huge dash blocks your visibility of the RH mirror on the '96 - it's mounted slightly forward versus the '93-94. Mine's a limo so it would be really nice to have decent side mirrors since I can't see much out the back, but the mirrors sucked on both the '96 and the '94.

The sound system in the '96 is easier to modify, too. The '93-95 have a rear-mounted amplifier that requires extensive wiring changes to replace or to add an aftermarket receiver.

Plugs are not easy to get at on the passenger side. But if you don't have significant crankcase pressure, no blow-by and no significant misfire I'd say a compression check is overkill.

Cadillacboy
08-30-11, 04:31 PM
One thing only counts for '94 is they also come with 3 ways lumbar support , **** we do only 1 lol

turbojimmy
08-30-11, 04:35 PM
One thing only counts for '94 is they also come with 3 ways lumbar support , **** we do only 1 lol

My '94 didn't. But the limos don't have a lot of options. Seems to be a "base" Fleetwood, like my '96. I did notice an air hose sticking out of the floor when I took the front passenger seat out. Would be cool to hook it up.

Cadillacboy
08-30-11, 04:43 PM
My '94 didn't. But the limos don't have a lot of options. Seems to be a "base" Fleetwood, like my '96. I did notice an air hose sticking out of the floor when I took the front passenger seat out. Would be cool to hook it up.

Yup, that amazes me why I only see base models as limos rather than fully loaded fancy Brougham as well

turbojimmy
08-30-11, 05:55 PM
Yup, that amazes me why I only see base models as limos rather than fully loaded fancy Brougham as well

That's what fascinates me about the limos. There's such a wide variety of customizations. I've only seen one that started out as a Brougham, which means more exist. It had the nicer front seats and vanity mirrors in the back. Chrome wheels, too. But, for the most part they were "base" cars which means the driver and front passenger get the short end of the stick amenity-wise. The back is all custom anyway.

Rick James
09-07-11, 03:13 PM
Some say OBD 1 is better, because early OBD 2 is buggy. I wouldn't know on that front.


Has anyone heard that OBD II is buggy for the 1996 model year?

sven914
09-07-11, 03:22 PM
^OBD-II was brand new in 1996 and one of the requirements of OBD-II is misfire detection. Many of the cars in '96 were experiencing drivability problems because the misfire parameters in the commuter were too sensitive. The computer would register a misfire if you hit bump in the road that caused the drive shaft to slightly slow down, which caused a hesitation in the crankshaft.

Some of the models that were more problematic were recalled and computer was reprogrammed, but in most cases it wasn't bad enough to warrant a recall. Companies just changed the settings for '97 and the problems got better.

Rick James
09-07-11, 03:27 PM
Thanks. Do you know if the 1996 OBD-II take to a custom tune well? I was thinking of having a chip burned to help gain fuel efficiency while towing.

turbojimmy
09-07-11, 04:40 PM
Thanks. Do you know if the 1996 OBD-II take to a custom tune well? I was thinking of having a chip burned to help gain fuel efficiency while towing.

There's no chip. The PCM is "flashed" with a new tune, usually by mail-order. I had a "power tune" re-flashed PCM in my '96 and it definitely made a difference.

Cadillacboy
09-07-11, 04:51 PM
There's no chip. The PCM is "flashed" with a new tune, usually by mail-order. I had a "power tune" re-flashed PCM in my '96 and it definitely made a difference.

So, did we . The car also sounded better and mpg slightly improved besides power gains