The rear legroom in my 92 deville is incredible. I sit pretty far back, and even big guys have so much room to stretch out back there! it looks like a limo. Ive been in towncars , crown vics, broughmas, etc (and those are larger cars), but there didnt seem to be as much rear legroom in those. Whats the deal?

Could be the driveshaft hump in those cars. Their trunks are huge though!

My Grand Marquis was as big as a whale, and no where near the rear-seat leg room as the Fleetwood. It is more efficient in design, despite being the same wheelbase.

I think our '89 Brougham as more rear leg room....

....then again, I have a Coupe, which is 3" shorter then the Sedan.... those 3" are cut off in legroom for people in the back.....

I agree..... It is insane.... They have more room than my Q, and its probably 8in longer!! Not to mention it has a bigger trunk TOO!!!!

I think the 95 fleetwoods have more room though, but I we cant compare boats to cars.....

"...it's got more leg room for your legs"

-Donnie Brasco

I agree..... It is insane.... They have more room than my Q, and its probably 8in longer!! Not to mention it has a bigger trunk TOO!!!!

I think the 95 fleetwoods have more room though, but I we cant compare boats to cars.....

Even my dad told me there is more rear leg room in my 1991 than his new DTS! I would wager that just because it is a Broughm, it does not mean the "boat" would have more leg room in back, remember......my Grand Marquis is prob. as big as your Grandpa's Broughm.

yeah it does truely have a load of leg room but with all that extra space in the back seat and in the trunk you have to remember what under the hood looks like... everything is tight together under the hood which makes it a pain in the rear to work on..... one mans comfort is another mans nightmare

Broughams have more legroom then the FWDs do. They aren't as much bigger on the inside then they are outside because pretty much everything about them is built bigger but there is more room.

which broughams are we talking about here? I could swear my back seat has more leg room than a pre 93 brougham. Its even noticeable just by looking!

1991. I've never been in the newer style one. Maybe you should look again :disappoin

OK, I've got some bad news for you Broughm! I am looking at my 1991 Cadillac full-line brochure and here are the numbers:(rear seat leg room)

1991 Fleetwood/Deville FWD=43.3 inches

1991 Broughm=41.2

Despite the fact that the Broughms wheelbase was 121.5 inches that year compared to the FWD which was 113.8. That's what I meant by my huge Grand Marquis, it totally dwarfs the "little" Fleetwood in my dad's garage, but the smaller one wins in other ways. ;)

I've got that 1991 brochure beside me here (if it's the one that has about 80 pages in it) but to me those numbers don't mean a whole lot. I've dealt with 2 of those front wheel drive Cadillacs and the Brougham. When you're sitting in them you can tell which one has more space.

I've got that 1991 brochure beside me here (if it's the one that has about 80 pages in it) but to me those numbers don't mean a whole lot. I've dealt with 2 of those front wheel drive Cadillacs and the Brougham. When you're sitting in them you can tell which one has more space.

They are very close, in fact, too close to probably notice a difference. I think it all comes to how it's designed. I test drove a Dodge SX 2.0 with the so called "cab foreward" design, and I could not believe the room in that thing, especially for the small exterior it has! Tons of leg room, and rear-seat room.