what would u rather have? a 1992 Sedan deVille or a 95 Fleetwood Brougham
and why?

heres my list

1992 SDV
+ better interior
+ more traction w/ FWD
+ more info/ better guages
+ bigger backseat :)
+ arguably better looking
+ easier to park
+ not too big

- 4.9 is less reliable than 5.7 LT1
- more expensive to fix motor/struts than on an FWB
- not as good in crashes (unibody)
- hard to work on 4.9/ 4T60-E
- no aftermarket parts for 4.9
- 4.9's need premium


1995 FWB
+ 350 LT1 (more reliable, more aftermarket)
+ RWD
+ body on frame
+ easier to work on
+ faster (not much, like .5 - .7 in the quarter mile quicker)

- i dont like the interior as much (dash is too long)
- backseat has less legroom than deville
- optispark ignition system- $1,000 distributor change
- no fuel data center
- its almost as long as a 1975 FWB
- i think the LT1 gets worse mileage than the 4.9
- hard to park (bigger c-pillars)


thats what i got

i love Fleetwoods and they are my favorite so i would go with a 95 Fleetwood. i dont have any reasons despite that i think the Fleetwoods are much nicer looking and a whole lot bigger. i love the Fleetwoods interior, the only thing i dont like is that the woodgrain isnt real wood (but that is the same case with the Deville). the Deville is nice looking but nothing compared to a Fleetwood, the Deville does have more room in the back though. if i had to chose i would always go with the Fleetwood. are you looking at getting one?

Devilles have a more classic look to them....I think you get the best of both worlds (except engine power) with a 92' Brougham

dont get me wrong, i like the box Caddies, but to me they dont look as good as the 93-96 Fleetwoods. sure they look classy but the 93-96s are called "The Cadillac of Cadillacs." and for good reason. if you look at them, you can see all the years of Fleetwood rolled into them. they are huge, like the 50s and 70s, the chrome, everything about them screams luxury. and they are simple yet sophisticated and nothing can compare. that is my opinion (and we all know what opinions are like). it is all in how you see the car(s).

In my opinion both of those Caddys you mentioned are very nice, but each one is a different flavor. But, if I had to choose from them I would go with the Fleetwood Brougham. I think that the Fleetwood has a little more elegance and kept most of the traditional Caddy looks.

In my opinion both of those Caddys you mentioned are very nice, but each one is a different flavor.

:yeah:

FWB!!
I really miss the one I had.....RWD/body-on-frame/350V8....such a classic caddy.

its interesting to note that you see more of the '89-93 deVilles get really beat up or have people do things to make them uglier (spinners, bad tint, ugly rims, etc,etc) the 93-96 fleetwoods usually stay pretty stock and they are much more expensive to buy used. For example, in minnesota you can usually find 89-93 devilles from around $1000-$5,000, and you find quite a bit of them. Its quite hard to find any 1993-96 FWB's for sale, and when they are, they usually list and sell for between $4k and $8k, regardless of mileage.
and no, i'm not thinking about trading my SDV for a FWB, atleast not until after college anyways, the next car i would get if i did need to get one would be an Oldsmobile Ninety Eight Regency Elite with the excellent, reliable, economical 3800

I've had a 91 SDV and now have a 94 FWB. I would never go back. The FWB is my kind of car! And the LT1 is a blast to step on. The first time you race someone and win, or go chasing a Mustang GT and he can't get away no matter what he does, will win you over. With a 4.9L whatever car, you will never have that sort of power. The LT1 is the absolute smoothest engine at idle that I have ever seen, (compare to S500 MB's and other very high $$ cars) and it is only a "chevy". I won't knock it. I still hate Chevy's, but this one is a keeper. You can thank Pontiac for 2 things the LT1 has, heads and reverse cooling. The design of the LT1/Vortec heads are taken from lessons learned from the Pontiac head development in the 60's and 70's.

I had a 91 Bonneville too, the mileage with a 3800 was very close to the 4.9L SDV. And the EPA est of the 94-96 FWB's are better than the 4.9L cars. 17/26 for FW, 17/25 for FWB and 17/23 FWB w/V4P towing package. The 91 SDV 4.9L is 16/26. I'll take 1 extra mpg city and smoke the 4.9L..... All with a 600# heavier car....

HMM...interesting. When i first bought the deville, i noticed it had about 80% of the power of the LT1 my roadmaster had, the biggest difference i noticed was the lack of power in the upper RPMs and it didnt have the highway passing power that the LT1 had, as for mileage, the 107k mile 4.9 deville averages 15.2 mpg and the 146k mile LT1 roadmaster averaged 13.7, driven the same way.

But now actually im thinking about trading in the deville for a 92-94 Town Car. I've driven a '94 Town Car Executive Series, and wow what a boat. There was absolutley no steering feel what so ever at lower speeds. I could do a u turn with my pinky finger. and it didnt even feel like you were driving on a road. It literally felt like you were gliding above it. I have never ridden in a 747 smoother than this. But it didnt handle worth a damn, and i would be afraid to punch the gas coming out of a corner because i wouldnt know where the rear end would go, It just felt incredibly disconnected from the road. But this car is the most old school american luxo cruiser i have ever driven. This is what i imagine a '76 Fleetwood to drive like. But i actually kinda like the ride and handling charachteristics of the T/C. Plus i love how its RWD, Body on frame, and the 4.6, while at a loss of power over the 4.9, is much easier to work on, its more modifiable, and its certainly more reliable (200k miles not a problem and is common) but ford's trannys are never as good as GM's and the air springs can leak and sag the rear end. but there are coil over setups for the T/C. I think they're coil overs?

We'll anyways we'll see whats gonna happen, and give me your suggestions on what i should do.

i owned a 96 or 97 (cant remember) TC for a week. now mind you this thing had 20 inch wires, had tranny problems. i bought it off a guy who sold it to me for 1500 (just to get the money back on the wheels). he told me that he had a rebuilt transmission for it. he said the transmission started screwing up a while before he put the wheels on. he said that the cluster had gone out a month back and that he had it replaced. i bought it and luckily i didnt sign the title right away. i sold it to my buddy and he put the new tranny in. still runs like a champ. so it is probably a pretty good car. the engine only had 75k miles on it when i bought it.

...he told me that he had a rebuilt transmission for it. he said the transmission started screwing up...

When Ford makes a transmission that doesn't fail at too young of an age, GM will have a perfect AC system that doesn't leak.

I have seen WAAAYYYY to many Fords have trans problems, most A4LD's, but some AOD (and its variants) fail and even rebuilts fail before my GM trans ever slips even once. Most go 2x Ford rebuilts on 1 GM factory built trans.

No, Fords suck for trans. I won't have them in my family anymore. Tried it on 3, and 2 of the 3 failed the trans (overrun clutch on one and the front bearing on the other, and the first before these 2 failed (it was already rebuilt) 20K after I got rid of it. Granted, A4LD's shift nice, fairly quick and firm, but they are weak, weak enough a Ford 3.0L and 4.0L eat them up. Crap. Ford can't seem to get it right. Maybe someday. GM got it right.

And the weak power of a 4.6L in a TC is just too much to ruin a car. They need 5.8L Windors with LS1 or LT1 type ports on the heads. Then, and only then will they be able to do much in the power catagory. Then they need a REAL trans to survive, which they don't have. :annoyed:

the same 4.6 liter thats in my Lincoln must be a different engine then. it has 260 hp! my Lincoln has 136k miles on it and is still in good working condition. tranny has never caused me a problem. it has that whatever tranny fluid that never loses its life or something that never has to be serviced.

I haven't heard of a 4.6L making that much power with SOHC heads, only DOHC heads. Maybe they finally did something. But the 98's weren't exactly fast. Unless the TC's were that much heavier (to slow them that much with 260hp, they would have to be around 600#'s heavier, if not more) Ford should be able to make decent power, but the track record always seems they were lacking a lot. Ford did have a 260hp V6 around (I haven't seen it, but the Intech V6, or was it really a V8? The Continental's, front drive) Still not all that fast from what I have heard. But never drove.

1998 Lincoln Town Car Touring Sedan 0-60 7.9 seconds, 1/4 mile 16.1 seconds. (unk gearing and weight)

1994 Chevrolet Impala SS 0-60 7.1 seconds 15.4 seconds 3.08's 4000#
1995 Chevrolet Impala SS 0-60 7.0 seconds 15.4 seconds 3.08's 4000#
1996 Chevrolet Impala SS 0-60 7.3 seconds 15.6 seconds 3.08's 4000#
1995 Buick Roadmaster Limited 0-60 6.7 seconds 15.0 seconds 2.93's 4100#?

(No LT1 Fleetwood info here)
This is from http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html

These were Aerostar vans (1990 4.0L E4WD 3.73's, 1992 3.0L 2WD 3.73's , 1992 4.0L 2WD 3.27's) The 90 had the trans rebuilt before we got it, it lasted around 100K. The 92 had 199K and the trans died. The other 92 had 190K on it and the trans died. My neighbors have a mid to late 80's cougar (old fox body, 302) and the trans is dead (stuck in 1st). They just got a 94 Taurus given to them, 69K miles, trans is slipping already. I just haven't see a Ford in my experience that didn't have a trans go at a very early age.

So we know ford makes a shitty tranny, but does anyone else make the same tranny i could put in a town car that wont die prematurely?

I am sure the trans have to be getting better. The A4LD's went through several evolutions from the mid 80's to 93, then a major fix up in 94, and then again in 97 with the addtion of a new gear (ok ok, they just started to turn on OD after first to make a new close ratio second, then disengage OD and go to the real second). The Mustangs go seem to survive. So if the AOD is like the A4LD, there is specific years to avoid and specific years that are likely ok.

Find a Ford nut and see. I found lots on the web on the A4LD when I was looking.

I have heard of people beefing up the THM200 4R for fords with an adapter plate. But that seem extreme. But it does get the Ford trans out of there.

Sorry, I don't mean to rag on Fords, I just got burned on 2 trans, and it cost me a ton of work in a short garage (vans are tall, and touch ceilings when jacked up too high) in 10-20 degree weather. I won't let that happen again.

I have to admit though, when a A4LD is shifting good, it shifts every bit as good as a THM400, which is my favorite shifting trans. I think Ford tolerances were sloppy pre 94. And they used washers instead of bearings and stuff like that. It took them a long time (in the auto industry) to fix the long term issues.

I haven't heard of a 4.6L making that much power with SOHC heads, only DOHC heads. Maybe they finally did something. But the 98's weren't exactly fast. Unless the TC's were that much heavier (to slow them that much with 260hp, they would have to be around 600#'s heavier, if not more) Ford should be able to make decent power, but the track record always seems they were lacking a lot. Ford did have a 260hp V6 around (I haven't seen it, but the Intech V6, or was it really a V8? The Continental's, front drive) Still not all that fast from what I have heard. But never drove.

my Continental is super fast, faster than or as fast as my buddies Fleetwood Brougham (94). the 98 &^ Continentals had 275 hp and the Mark VIII LSC had 290 hp. so yeah Ford gots some fast engines. the 4.6 in my Continental is the same as the 95 Mustang Cobra engine or something like that. the V8 anyway.

Are the digital dashes pretty reliable in the Fleetwood Broughams?

Mine is ok, but the high beam indicator is fading, unless it is supposed to be that dark. Compared to my 91 SDV dash, the 91 dash is much brighter and crisper. But they are not backlit dashes like Ford used. They are true vacuum flouresant displays.

Another important thing, Do The Fleetwood Broughams have the Driver Information Center like in the Sedan deVilles? ( avg & instant fuel economy, miles til empty, fuel used) I'm pretty sure they dont have this, but i would just like to know, because thats a feature I love to have.

No unfortunately it doesn't. I miss that too. But, honestly, after having my 94 FWB for the last 7 months, honestly don't miss it. It is a nice gadjet, but the FWB (LT1 w/factory 3.42's) is such a blast to drive, I don't even look for it anymore.

yeah, my roadmaster never had the DIC, and i really like it on the SDV, but its never very accurate.

yeah, my roadmaster never had the DIC, and i really like it on the SDV, but its never very accurate.

i loved it on my Continental. it was cool to look at and do a system check and other things. when i got my Fleetwood i wasnt worried about it. the car looked so damn good that it wasnt something i wasnt too worried about having. just cool to have to give it that "luxury" feel to them.

yeah well a big reason i sold my roadmaster was because it didnt have enough gizmos and stuff, its instrumentation was shitty (a bad gas guage, speedo, temp guage) i think luxury cars should have tons of info and guages like a 1991-92 Toronado Trofeo, or a 91-96 Buick Park Ave. The main thing i dont like about the Fleetwood Broughams is the stupid 3 gauge setup (gas, temp, speed) If the FWB had a DIC, i would be SOLD!

(BTW im a little angry at my friends' 91 Talon!)