: '77-'92 Brougham vs. '93-'96 Fleetwood

04-05-05, 07:05 PM
Just curious to see what you guys who have driven the last two generations of Caddy's big beast when comparing the two.

I love the '93-'96s, but have always wondered what the "old" ones drive like in comparison. Namely, how different do things like the steering, brakes, ride, quietness, etc. compare?

89 D'elegance
04-05-05, 07:53 PM
Well, if it helps I own a 89 Brougham D'elegance and would not trade it for a newer one. Nothing against them, I just prefer that style as it is a big "LOOKER" and rides like you are on a cloud as I am sure most caddys do. It is white with red interior which is the right color for that car and everything including the opera lights work on it. Before I was married, you couldnt give me a car like that but now I cant wait to drive it each and every day. I just see less and less of them on the road untill I put mine on soon then they will be all over.

04-05-05, 08:50 PM
Feel the same way here, but about my '93, the first year of the "new" style, which I absolutely love. One of my neighbor's had a beige '92 Brougham with the 5.7L and after he died recently, his son across the street got it, so it's still right nearby. Not that I dislike it, but I prefer the more cohesive, fresher look of my car, not to mention the much more modern interior, over his. Plus, mine looks SO much bigger :D , even though it isn't by that much.

Oh yeah, and white with red leather is about the best combo EVER on this car :yup: :yup: (especially when you find out, Thanks to Sandy, that it's 1 of only 30 '93s to exist with those colors!!)

Now, anyone actually able to compare BOTH based on how they drive or how things on each work? Same basic mechanicals, I know, but there has to be some difference in how each floats about. :)

04-05-05, 09:22 PM
well, i would never trade my 93 for a 77-92 NEVER!!!!!! i like the 77-92, but IMO i think the 93-96 are alot nicer looking and they get way more looks than the others (plus they are very rare). ride quality, the last 77-92 body style i rode in was my grandmas 89 Brougham, wich it rode nice but it kinda made me sick sitting in the back. it was too cushy for me. now driving it is a different story, drove good but to me seemed underpowered. you could turn a 90 degree angle with your pinky finger in that thing (which really kicked ass). but the 93-96s ride a little more stiff than the old body style (not much though, or doesnt seem to anyway) and is bigger and more powerful. i am looking to get a 92 Brougham though cause the body style on those is real nice too (not the 93 or anything). my 89 Deville rode alot like my grandmas 89 Brougham. if you are looking to get a 77-92 go ahead, nice car but i wouldnt trade the 93 for it.

04-05-05, 10:50 PM
I wouldn't trade my 90 Brougham for the 93+. I just think there's some truth to the "upside down bathtub" look the 93+ have. It's purely a matter of styling for me, but other than that, I'd drive either.


Night Wolf
04-05-05, 11:38 PM
lol..... IIRC aren't they all riding on the same chassis?

I like my '79 DeVille....alot.... but I like the side profile of the ~'89 Brougham much better...... and the back is better too.... I like the nose of my car though....

I have always liked the '93-'96 Fleets... mostly the '94-'96...LT1.... think of it as a modern style while the others are classic.... I think as a daily driver...the '93-'96 would be a better choice.. slightly newer interrior etc....

04-05-05, 11:55 PM
I personally like the style of the 77-92 models. They have that classic Caddy style. The newer ones are faster but a few mods can change all that. I recently dropped an 87 350 Iroc motor in my 91 and the performance was night and day compared to the 305 Chevy that was in it. I've already installed a dual exhaust on it but I'm taking it up a few notches with Vortec heads, cam, intake, carb, and headers as we speak. I believe these mods will relieve any LT1 Fleetwood of its glory and still have the better styling with more reliability and none of the electrical crap and opti spark hassles. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder though, I just feel no need to behold a 93-up Fleetwood.

04-05-05, 11:57 PM
The 93-96 looks pretty cool, but I wouldn't trade one for my Brougham. A new STS? Heh, make me an offer...

04-05-05, 11:59 PM
Yes, they are the same basic chassis. GM has always been working more and more on the NVH, Noise Vibration and Harshness. My car is a 94 V4P, so it is harsher than most, I haven't really rode in any others since my mom's 85 when she bought it new. She loved the car, hated the HT4100 in such a big car. The selling point for her was the brakes, it was the first full size that she liked and that could brake as good as her old 76 Delta 88 Royale. She had a 84 Olds 98, and it wasn't a comparisson to the 85. But the 84 98 had gobs more power with the 307 "5A" heads engine. But it had the smaller brakes and did not brake very well.

For me? I like the 94-96, LT1 power is IN. I guess a 7L car might compare some with power and drivability. So 77-? 425 cars and 94-96 LT1 cars.

04-06-05, 12:12 AM
I like my 95 I miss my 85's. I wouldn't go back though. The only feature I would like to have from my 85 that my 95 doesn't is the fuel data panel... Turning radius did seem better on the 85. The p/s assist on the 95 is nice firmer when your cruising soft for parking. The 95 had a quieter ride than the 85 (till I did the exhaust) Power wise FORGETABOUTIT! LT1 rules!!! My 85 was like 4000 lbs. my 95 is like 4600lbs. but the 95 feels lighter(go figure) like the look of both cars!!! But now have a preferencw for the one I own (95)


04-06-05, 07:44 AM
All Cadillacs Are Beautiful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

04-06-05, 07:49 AM
Really interesting to see all the different points of view.

I have to admit, one of my main reasons for starting the thread is I was just looking through some online classifieds and came across a '91 Brougham that was all white with a blue interior (like the white, but blue is :disappoin ), plus had a power sunroof. I normally don't like this "older" style, but for some reason this car seemed pretty attractive and I started thinking I might be able to see myself in one of them--but was curious to see what some of you who have driven both had to say.

Overall, though, nothing beats the '93-'96 in my opinion :coolgleam--it has all the best traits of the older car, being HUGE, tough, and simple to maintain, but is mixed with a more modern look and feel.

04-06-05, 08:09 AM
Of course I like the last generation Fleetwood but I think the '92 would still be my favorite. It had the classic styling, decent power via the Chevy 350 engine and IMO it was the most reliable, solid car Cadillac has built in many years, maybe ever.
Somebody here mentioned the '84 Olds? I LOVED the '84 Buick Park Ave. I bought a couple dozen of them with the chrome rally wheels. What a sharp-looking car! But did I understand you right that you felt the RWD Olds 98 was more powerful than the '85 FWD one? I wouldn't agree with that. If the '85 FWD full-size cars had any advantage over the '84 cars it was in thier performance. Our '85 FWD Park Ave. would blow our '84 RWD ones into the weeds in a drag race.

The Ape Man
04-06-05, 11:48 AM
I never owned a RWD Cad newer than 88 but used to work on quite a few of them. I've owned many RWD Cadillacs from '71 up to 88.
Overall, the build quality of the later models is much better. Reliability of the engine control systems has improved to the point where they are looked on as an asset instead of a liability. Antilock brakes are a feature which just buries the early cars in comparison.
Cosmetically, the earlier models appeal to me especially 2 door body styles. The late Brougham reminds me of a '74 Chrysler. There probably would have been many more American cars that looked this way if it were not for Japanese quality turning the domestic auto industry on it's ear years ago. Those cars have an "America is #1" look. Kind of a throwback to the '60's. Maybe they knew from the start that the late Broughams would be built by plants where build quility could be controlled. Those care were aimed at the geezer market after all.
I always liked 8/6/4 cars because you could buy them for a fraction of what they were worth especially at 2-5 years of age before people wised up about the B.S. that the engines were no good. The HT-4100 cars were even better to buy for a song and could accept older drivetrains. After 1979, RWD Cadillacs were something which just begged to be taken home and modified. The '8/6/4 cars were the exception. The later Broughams with correct power and 4 speed lockup transmissions are something that can give satisfaction without modification.
There were a lot of design flaws on the earlier models. The high current portion of the climate control system would not last even a few years without maintanence. The rear axle bearings could be counted on to eat into the axles as they were used as races. Catalytic converters would clog and leave you on the side of the road although this was not the fault of the converters themselves.
A quick look at how the cars held resale values will give an answer as to how the public feels about this comparison.

04-06-05, 11:18 PM
My experience is with the 1980-'92 models. I have owned an '82 and currently own an '89 & '90. The early cars are good BUT underpowered! The '90-92 cars with the 350 Chevy engine are the best. This is NOT the same car as an '89 or earlier...just about EVERYTHING has been re-designed...and for only a 3 year run. Fantastic Automobile.


04-06-05, 11:51 PM
The only difference between the 1991 and 1992 Broughams and your 1993 is the way they look. Stuff like the suspension and the steering and the engine is all the same.

I like the old Broughams better then the newer Fleetwoods. If I was looking for a newer car like that I might look at a Fleetwood if one was for sale near me but I don't know if I'd get one or not.

04-07-05, 12:01 AM
The only difference between the 1991 and 1992 Broughams and your 1993 is the way they look. Stuff like the suspension and the steering and the engine is all the same.

I like the old Broughams better then the newer Fleetwoods. If I was looking for a newer car like that I might look at a Fleetwood if one was for sale near me but I don't know if I'd get one or not.

Just go see it for the heck of it. Even if you don't buy it u might be able to test drive it...

04-07-05, 09:20 PM
I'm not saying this just because I own a 79 sedan deville, but my favorites of all of them are the 77-79 models, and I like the 78-79 tail lights the best. I don't like the more squared off tail lights on the 80-92 cars as much, and I also don't like the straight formal roof as much. On the 93-96 fleetwoods, the only thing I don't really like is how the vinal top doesn't come down to the window sill in the back like the earlier cars.

04-08-05, 09:25 PM
I was forced to retire my 92 Brougham due to excessive miles and rust... :crying:

I was on the hunt for anything with a 350 from 90-92 or 94-96... but when I came close to buying a late round-body, I just couldn't do it... The styling just doesn't "do" it for me... too tubby... as much as I lusted after a LT1, I couldn't get past the bloated, slab-sided appearance...

The 90-92 is just the right mix of classic Caddy style with later technology... ABS, Chevy 350 with fuel injection, digital dash, and the facelift is just what the Dr. ordered - the car has a presence that screams CADILLAC - in the classic sense. :worship:

I found a really nice '90 d'Elegance 350, and am SO happy with my find! :)

But hey - it's whatever floats your boat. :eyebrow:

04-08-05, 10:12 PM
Just take the 92 and add an LT1/4L60E and 3.73's and have a ball!

Best of both worlds?

04-09-05, 02:42 AM
I'd like to see a RWD northstar swap into one of our cars with the 5 speed automatic as well. Anyone ever heard of someone doing that?

04-09-05, 12:04 PM
I'd like to see a RWD northstar swap into one of our cars with the 5 speed automatic as well. Anyone ever heard of someone doing that?

I'd LOVE to see that too. People have been doing this kind of transplant with the previous FWD only version into their classic RWD streetrods and such, so it can't be much harder to put it into one of these--especially now that they actually have a RWD version.

The electronics and mounting would probably be a nightmare, but it could be done with a lot of $$$ and brains.

04-09-05, 03:07 PM
Yeah, I'd consider it because you can buy the RWD crate engine for like 4 grand, and in california there's not much I can do to my 425 at least until it's smog exempt.

04-09-05, 03:43 PM
no contest its the 93-96, Cadillac really outdid themselves with the styling on these, I love classic Cadillacs and I'd have to say of all years it might be my favorite and I'm real into 60's cars and some 70's. I really like the 2 door fleetwoods of 80-85 but wouldn't trade my Fleetwood for one.

04-09-05, 09:16 PM
I'd like to see the RWD 96 Fleetwood drivetrain in a 96 Seville...beauty and practicality all in one package.

Yes, I have a FWB and a 96 SLS. :)

04-09-05, 09:42 PM
It would make more sense to put a corvette drivetrain in a seville I think. This stuff should probably be going in the "what would you do if you had $$$" thread.

04-10-05, 05:28 PM
Yeah, but I can dream. I was just thinking of Cadillac parts in a Cadillac. Doesn't make any sense at all, but it's fun to think about it sometimes.