: 5 reasons I LOVE my '94 n* DeVille

Andrew M. Franklin
12-29-04, 01:36 PM
Are you with me on this people...

1. Styling/design is beautiful. Not heavy-handed - restrained jewelery - -
asthetically "floats" both inside and out. Looks great parked or on the
2. This thing MOVES! I've owned and driven many quick cars and have to
say this Cadillac is one of the most fun rides I've ever driven.
3. I can't believe how much car one can have for the dollar on an older n*.
Bought it cash for less than the guy I recently
dusted in his BMW 5-series pays in 7 car payments.
4. My wife looks great in this car. Never thought I'd get bubbling about a
middle-aged woman driving Detroit iron with 3 kids in the back, but WOW
does she look spank in this ride!
5. I love the level of technological sophistication in this car. I've teched at
Rolls-Royce and Mercedes-Benz and frankly a lot of their systems are
exercises in engineering that are kind of neat on their own, but don't
integrate into the whole very successfully. Almost everything on this
DeVille works together beautifully. Seems like the design/engineering team
really thought things through. Heck, I'm even beginning to like the digital
instrument cluster! Why? - Like the rest of the car, it works!

12-29-04, 02:18 PM
Great post...I concur. SPANK!!?

12-29-04, 02:31 PM
yea...I double checked myself reading the "spank" too...that's a new one on me. :D

12-30-04, 01:41 AM
Good for you Andrew!

Personally, I love my 93 Eldo! Most 4-door sedans have homogenous look nowadays.

But, you just don't see many elegant and uniqe looking 2-door coupes like the Eldo.

I like White colored cars but my Dk. Polo Green Met. color grew on me too. And the Touring Coupe package makes a subtle statement too.

And then there is my other baby - the 85 Eldo Biarritz. Met. Blue with White and Stainless Steel roof and White Leather Interior! Almost Pimpin', yet restrained!

Gotta love your Caddies!

12-30-04, 12:47 PM
Dont forget reason number 6.. The back seat doubles as a 'love' bed with a fair degree of comfort... Cant say that for the past 8 cars I've owned (exception 1964 deville)... Man, that 1980 nissan 280zx was rough, almost broke my hip.

12-30-04, 01:23 PM
Andrew -

I didn't think RR was ever known for its innovative approach to technology. I thought they were pretty conservative, "this has worked OK for years," kind of people, with the only exception of the latest models. What, in particular, did you think was not successfully integrated into the whole? Engines? Transmissions? Which individual systems and why?

I agree with you on the MB side. The one system that comes to my mind on a 300 E class was the vacuum-operated door locks. In itself, a neat idea. In practice, a totally unnecessary, problematic, silly design that could have been improved if the engineers had asked a few questions of other design teams, such as the people who worked on the door hinges, the wiring layout, and the rear seats. Anyone else have thoughts on this item? Or is this too far off-topic? :rolleyes:


12-30-04, 04:50 PM
i have to agree with 95 concours on the number 6 reason. i ride in a 87 brougham but i know exactly what you mean. the back seat is like a big leather couch in your ride.

Andrew M. Franklin
01-03-05, 08:05 AM
There are two areas I've found weak on my '94:
1. Visibility is poor. I can't see any of the corners of this car while driving, and have less intuitive "feel" of the same than I do in a Ford E-350 15p. van. If the car weren't so fun to sport around this would be a non-issue.
2. Who designed weatherstrip/door sealing on this car?? Works ok, but I get the feeling the engineers struggled with this. Look at the big chunky block where the rear corners for the hood meet the cowl. A comprimise. Silly little striplette thing above "C" pillar on roof. Clamp-on seals along fenders@ "A" pillar are fussy and come off easily.

Only other matters are little nuisances I gladly endure. For instance, the symbol on the 4-way flasher switch can only be seen by the passenger and then only when bending down. I'm sure this is a parts-bin application, and that's fine.

How about those thin little fender skirts on the '94? Very expensive. They did away with them on the next model year, but though fussy and superfluous, they are charming. By the way, I live near O'hare - how about you? Happy New Year - Andy

PS. I only worked on Clouds, Shadows, and Spirits up till 1986. You're right, they weren't into innovation per se (for instance, didn't go to disc brakes till approx. '67) but some of the systems were insanely over-engineered. Like the 20-something electric (Lucas!!) servo's used to manage hvac. And the nitrogen-filled hydro-spheres for brake assist. The harness on the Cloud III wiper motor to switch is about as thick as a garden hose. I bring up these two systems in particular because either system could have been pulled from a '69 Impala and dropped right in the Rolls for way less $ and would have actually worked! Thanks for your clarification on the Rolls vs MB. You're correct and I probably shouldn't have used them both as examples of the same approach.