: 93-broughams



89fatb
03-03-06, 12:20 AM
i just had today, my first hand experience with 93 and on broughams. im not trying to start shit. i've driven 93-on roadmasters and they all seem the same.:tisk: but what im try to say my opinion is 92 and older broughams. really 89 and older look better more squared and such.....the 93 and on just look ......FAT??? they seem very curvy. the sides seem to curve out were my 89 brougham compared to that 95 seemed GANGSTA compared to that. Keep in mind I just kept looking at that 95 just admiring that gold paint luxurious and curves. its a caddy its sexy. the lt1 made me jealous! i had to post. im sorry i have been :alchi::alchi::alchi:

caddycruiser
03-03-06, 07:04 AM
Interesting comments, as I've always thought the '90 and older models looked like squared off, over-chromed antiques. I like some, but for the most part, the older cars just don't do it for me and you see a lot of them all over the place, in varying degrees of condition.

The '93-96 models do look a bit "fat", to some people at least, and are often referred to as the "whale cars" since they can look a little like a whale. That being said, I think the general styling is a lot cleaner but still very classy Caddy, the interior is a LOT better (or at least more modern), they perform better, and are a lot rarer to see than the old ones...there just aren't that many around, especially since they were only made for 4 years.

But, there's a lot of people with the same views as you, who think the older ones look better and another half who agree with me, so it's all good:thumbsup:

Katshot
03-03-06, 07:48 AM
I think pre-'93 cars had a more "classic" look. Technically, they aren't much to appreciate but they ARE classy-looking and very comfy. The '93 was kind of a bridge car in that it "looked" like the newer car but that was about it. The '94-'96 cars were full-blown new Caddy! Power, and more tech than the '93 and older cars for sure but if you're into the "classic" looks, they leave you cold.

96Fleetwood
03-03-06, 08:42 AM
Its all a matter of preference:

http://www.richmonddubs.com/gallery/albums/leloz/160_6066_IMG.jpg

http://photos.ebizautos.com/4234/879838_2.jpg

I have owned both models and as far as daily driving goes, the 1996 takes the cake. For pure cruising in classic style, the 1990-1992 is the show stopper.

caddycruiser
03-03-06, 11:36 AM
Very good comparison there^^

I still think the older ones are quite a bit more common and too "antique relic" for me, but I can still appreciate them...at least some of them that is, like the rarer '91 and '92 models with TBI 350's. Those are the only ones I could stomach driving or having.

brougham
03-03-06, 06:12 PM
I don't like the newer ones. The ouside looks like a Caprice or a Roadmaster and the inside is too plain looking. The interior isn't better in them at all! They also aren't that rare. I see a lot more of them around then ones like my 1991.

96Fleetwood
03-03-06, 07:34 PM
I respect your opinion, but I used to own a 1991 Brougham and now a 1996 Fleetwood and the interior in the 1996 is far better. Everything from the comfort, heated seats, lumbar, seat positions, and MUCH better headrests and stereo.

As for looking like a caprice... just put a 1982-1992 Brougham next to a 1982-1990 Caprice and tell me they don't look alike.

caddycruiser
03-03-06, 10:15 PM
I respect your opinion, but I used to own a 1991 Brougham and now a 1996 Fleetwood and the interior in the 1996 is far better. Everything from the comfort, heated seats, lumbar, seat positions, and MUCH better headrests and stereo.

As for looking like a caprice... just put a 1982-1992 Brougham next to a 1982-1990 Caprice and tell me they don't look alike.

Same opinion here. While there's clearly something shared between a newer Caprice and a newer Fleetwood, they look completely different for the most part.

And I never got the old square look, that just looked like a slightly gaudier box Caprice...

brougham
03-04-06, 01:42 PM
I respect your opinion, but I used to own a 1991 Brougham and now a 1996 Fleetwood and the interior in the 1996 is far better. Everything from the comfort, heated seats, lumbar, seat positions, and MUCH better headrests and stereo.

As for looking like a caprice... just put a 1982-1992 Brougham next to a 1982-1990 Caprice and tell me they don't look alike.

I like the way my Cadillac feels inside. Maybe you think the Fleetwoods are more comfortable inside but I just don't like the way they look. The seats and door panels are plain like any other car and the dashboard is ugly. Heated seats are nice but they don't work in older cars a lot and the radios are all pretty much the same.

Everything between one of those Caprices and Broughams are different. They don't look alike at all.

Jonas McFeely
03-04-06, 02:04 PM
I like the 80-85 Broughams.They had a slightly different badging,clear turn signal lights(way better looking),better looking wheel covers,more color options/combinations,you could get the coupe fi you wanted.Only bad thing is that they had the HT4100.An nice engine swap will take care of all that.The 86-89s are pretty sweet too,but just dont do it for me,and the 90-92's are also pretty sweet,but i HATE that front end on those,and the lack of color options.Yeah they had the 350,and digital dash and a few more options,but i dont think they look nearly as good as the previous ones.As for the 93-96: more refined,blah blah blah,poorly styled,nasty rear end,not enough color options inside and out.Whatever,we love what we love...

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-04-06, 02:35 PM
Its no secret that I love the 80-92 Broughams, especially the 1990-92 models. The old school squared off design is a real throwback to the disco era, but its go the modern niceties like ABS, fuel injection etc etc. For me, its the quintessential Cadillac, the perfect Cadillac IMO. It's got the old school Cadillac floaty ride, the extravagant interior and exterior design, with tons of chrome, leather, and faux wood trim, and with the 350, it makes pretty good power. And I've always thought Caddies should have nice, quiet power, like a LT1 FWB. The power is there, but its unassuming and people would never guess.

But I have to say, I like the 93-96 design also, but not as much as the 80-92 models. The 93-96's look very imposing and formidable. They look like a tank. They look much longer and larger than the Town Car, and the Town Car is only about 8" shorter, and about 400 lbs less. And it looks TONS longer and heavier than my deVille, but it looks surprisingly similar to a 94-96 deVille, like the deVille is 9/10s the FWB. They both have those large, smooth lines with skirts. Honestly, I think that the FWB is too big of a car for me to drive daily, not just because its almost 2 feet longer than my deVille, but its got higher beltlines and bigger blindspots, The 90-97 Town Cars and 80-92 Broughams have lower beltlines and smaller blindspots.

Funny to think that the 93-96 Fleetwood Brougham is only 9" shorter than the longest "civilian" Caddy ever, the 76 Fleetwood Brougham at 234" long!

brougham_geezer
03-04-06, 09:03 PM
Personally, I really like both the 77-79 Cads, the 80-89 ones, and the 93-96 variety as well. The ones I do not enjoy, are the 90-92 model vehicles. They are the ones that seem more like a 'bridge' car to me. The awkward looking side cladding, and hideous single euro headlight try to modernize a style that shouldn't have been continued into the nineties. There are other cars like that, that the manufacturer simply slapped ugly crap onto, to cover their asses while they developed something more fitting for the times. They're sort of like the late 80s Caprices, who also got the single headlight treatment, as GM attemped to 'smooth out' a car, which was never meant to be swoopy or smooth in the least. It was created in an era where the cars where boxy, and square. That was the style. Don't get me wrong, I respect these cars and those who drive them. They're excellent automobiles, some of my favourites. I just definitley prefer the 80-89 style. On that note, I really don't agree with people that put a 90-92 style treatment on their 80s cads. Completley ridiculous. But to each his own!

At least the 93-96 Vehicles are 100% styled for the decade. They look very classy indeed. Very large, yet swoopy. LT1 Cads like that are what all the taxi drivers here are dying to get their hands on. They're simply grand!

Jonas McFeely
03-05-06, 05:35 AM
Dude for real,i agree with almost everything you said.Well said.Im drunk now but for real,good words.Go canada also.Sometimes i wish i were canadian.My last name is actually french-canadian but im of german and irish descent.I told myself i woyld never post when im wasted but oh well,Cadillacs rule and have a good day.