: 1990 and newer Brougham/Fleetwood Brougham, your likes and dislikes!!



I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-08-06, 02:51 PM
I've always loved the 90-92 Broughams, and I like the 93-96's even though they lack some of the features of the Town Cars, and generally, they seemed older and less modern than the Town Cars. Anyways, I would definetly love to purchase a 90-92 Brougham D'Elegance, just as long as it didnt have the 307. And I suppose if I found a nice LT1 FWB in the colors I like, I may consider purchasing it.

Anyways, what are your dislikes and likes with this bodystyle? (from your own experience please!)

Other than the power difference, are there any other big differences between the 90-92 model and 94-96's other than the looks and interior?

Has anyone owned a 90-97 Town Car and a 90-96 Brougham? Can you tell me the biggest differences in the way they drive?

N0DIH
03-08-06, 03:12 PM
FDC, I miss it. The simplicity of the Fleetwood doesn't really warrant it, but I miss it. It was fun to play with, as well as all the A/D's that I could monitor while I drove was very helpful in learning the car and the DFI system.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-08-06, 04:49 PM
Yeah I know I would miss that FDC and diagnostic mode if I ever got the Brougham. The Broughams just have the Speedo and gas guage, which I think is really dumb for 1995, if it was 1976, it would be different, but I think it should atleast have speedo, tach, gas and temp guage.

Katshot
03-08-06, 05:36 PM
If you REALLY gotta see all that stuff, buy a cheap scan tool.
To be honest, I've rarely used the OBD display on the cars. Too hard to use and very cryptic. The scan tool gives you everything in plain english more or less, and expands on what's available to you.
As for the Lincoln vs. Cadillac question, IMO, in most cases other than the rather large difference in power, the T/C is generally a more comfortable car to drive. Hell, the engine's damn near the ONLY reason I have my '95 Fleetwood. If it didn't have the LT1, it wouldn't be in my garage. Face it, they are rather slim on technical goodies, have no interior storage space, and aren't REALLY well designed or put together. What they DO offer is a whole lot of interior room and trunk space, relatively good gas mileage, and a basic drivetrain that will last forever. And let's not forget about that POWER!
If all I wanted was a comfortable full-size American luxury car, and don't care at all about power, I'd suggest the '90-'91 Brougham, or if you need/want newer, the '97-up Lincoln T/C.

N0DIH
03-08-06, 05:41 PM
I guess I would have to see that to believe it. SOHC 4.6L's haven't impressed me much at all....

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-08-06, 05:49 PM
The Ford V8's seem more focused on fuel economy than performance. I've read many reviews on edmunds.com where people will get 29-30 MPG on the freeway in their 4.6 Town Cars, where as 26 is about the best you'll ever get in a LT1 FWB. Around town, 15-16 is about average for a 350 powered FWB, where as I've read many reviews where people will get 18-20 around town in their Town Cars.

That being said, a Town Car with the 210hp 4.6 is about as quick as the L05 350 powered Broughams.

N0DIH
03-08-06, 06:01 PM
I would tend to agree, that sounds about what I would expect. The L05 being stronger out of the hole likley, the 4.6L stronger on top.

Economy primarily due to lack of inches. But likely you wouldn't want to tow much at all with a 4.6L compared to the L05 or LT1.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-08-06, 06:03 PM
Yeah IIRC, the Town Car's towing capacity is like 3000 lbs...same as my '92 deVille.

brougham
03-08-06, 06:08 PM
That being said, a Town Car with the 210hp 4.6 is about as quick as the L05 350 powered Broughams.

Actually it's not. I've driven a Town Car many times and the first thing you notice when you drive the Cadillac after is that it's faster. If you're going to start comparing Town Cars to Broughams or Fleetwoods do a search for it because there are already a bunch of really good posts about it. Katshot's seen them before.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-08-06, 06:13 PM
Hey I'm just going off 1/4 mile times... They both run a 17.1 as quoted on www.car-stats.com

caddycruiser
03-08-06, 06:27 PM
If you REALLY gotta see all that stuff, buy a cheap scan tool.
To be honest, I've rarely used the OBD display on the cars. Too hard to use and very cryptic. The scan tool gives you everything in plain english more or less, and expands on what's available to you.
As for the lincolnforums.com question, IMO, in most cases other than the rather large difference in power, the T/C is generally a more comfortable car to drive. Hell, the engine's damn near the ONLY reason I have my '95 Fleetwood. If it didn't have the LT1, it wouldn't be in my garage. Face it, they are rather slim on technical goodies, have no interior storage space, and aren't REALLY well designed or put together. What they DO offer is a whole lot of interior room and trunk space, relatively good gas mileage, and a basic drivetrain that will last forever. And let's not forget about that POWER!
If all I wanted was a comfortable full-size American luxury car, and don't care at all about power, I'd suggest the '90-'91 Brougham, or if you need/want newer, the '97-up Lincoln T/C.

PERFECT way to sum it all up. None of the Fleetwoods/Broughams, were ever extraordinary in terms of build quality or features (and that's talking about both the "old" and "new" models). Like, for instance, none really had that "tank/carved from one solid piece of metal" feel, despite the weight and size, and a lot of the trim can be pretty easily...so you do have to be a bit more gentle on them sometimes than the size and weight must suggest.

But, there is still something very likeable about them. For me I think it's because I used to see them once in a rare while and always thing "president's car" or just that someone very important was driving, and that always seemed true. So, I definately love the styling, outside and inside. As far as features, yes, they're lacking and I'm a really "techy" person usually, but I never miss anything when I'm in either Fleetwood...I have a nice sounding stock stereo, terrific seat and leg room, a trunk I could fit a VW in, and very respectable levels of power and general performance. I can outrun (at least seemingly) a lot of people, even with the '93...and there's something very cool about that, especially in bone stock/whitewall/granny form, that something like a stock TC would probably never do.

I respect TC's, due to the fact that Ford continues to build them "in the classic way" still to this day, and actually really like the looks and features of the newest models, but am not so crazy about the early to mid 90's box ones. They're nice, granted, but so common and lack any real standout feature, that I'd still rather have a Fleetwood.

No offense to a Deville driver, but those just always fall into my category of "couldn't ever bring myself to drive one" deals. Not a huge fan of the smaller size or the styling, and really dislike the FWD, but that's just me. I would, however, take a new '06 DTS if someone gave it to me...

Now, if my '95 ever gets out of the shop, I might be even a little more overjoyed...I actually still make fun of it, and GM in general all the time, but still love the be-jeebers out of these cars.

Strangely though, I wonder why I've seen so many lately...ever since I bought mine, I've seen at least one a day back here in Delaware, compared to usually only randomly seeing one or two a month...

1990CaddyBrougham
03-08-06, 06:44 PM
I have owned 15 Town cars from 90-96
13 were resold, 2 were my personal cars.
I have 2 in my immedate family, 4 in the rest.

Last one i drove was my 1996 Town Car Signature. Has 72k Factory Tow Package, and the rare traction control. It was well loaded. Black with tinted windows, chrome wheels.. all the trim. I love the car to death. ALOT faster then the cadillac.. that is one thing i miss. And its alot quiter. But since i was about 4-5 i use to pass a guys house and see the exact same Caddy.. white with all the white trim. Always wanted one. Drove the town car for about 9 months.. ran into some common problems, fixed them then got tired of it, especially the black color. It was a hot car, but black was to hard to maintain. The ride was superior soft. Loved the air ride. Its i nicer to drive then my cadillac atleast.. but the cadillac was a car i loved for its looks. Its more me. All the chrome and stainless.. That is what i grew up on form my dad. THats why i have all the trim on any car.. and why i have a 57 Chevy.
This is my Town Car
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v230/towncar097/New%20Paint/NewPaint6.jpg
My Cadillac
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v230/towncar097/1990%20Brougham/Brougham3.jpg
Likes and Dislikes.
I like the cloth in my Cadillac, even though its base model. Thats waht i wanted, i dont like the leather in the cold.
The town car was more modern i think...
Town Car had a moon roof. though was avalible for the Caddy.
Power was far more better in the Town Car
Ride was quieter and smoother.
Cadillac is more classy..

Never drove a 5.7 90-92 Borugham. I would like to, see what power i may be missing. If it is nice like the Town Car then i would probably sell my Cadillac and look fo ra nice 5.7, id want one with a roof, and a DEleagance with velor. White, Blue, Burgandy... dont care for many others.
Or I will probably go back to the town Car. a 98 Bodyslye Cartier. Top of the line. with all the trim.

I have my Town Car to sell, wich should bring $5000 and if i sold my Cadillac i would think i would get 3-5000?

We will see. Thing i REALLY hate about the Brougham.... The Gas Miles. I got 18 city in the Town Car.... up to 28 once highway. I couldnt touch 18 on Highway with the Brougham.. and i drive VERY easy.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-08-06, 06:55 PM
Ah yes I was waiting for you to chime in on this!

So in general you like the Town Cars more?

1990CaddyBrougham
03-08-06, 07:01 PM
Id say so. More powerful (though i say this without driving a 5.7. The 5.7 93+ Broughams are probably as fast.. but this 307 I got is slow. And if i try to go fast, the gas gadge goes along w/ it.

I shoud drive a 5.7 90-92, and a 5.7 newer style. Then judge.

If i were to get another town Car (after i sell my last one..) i would want this car.http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Lincoln-Town-Car-CARTIER-2002-LINCLON-CARTIER-EDITION-TOWN-CAR-FROM-FLORIDA_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ31851QQitemZ461 8445089QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW
I like the Caddy.. but i dont think it will last forever. Im 17... I like cars... so i am meant to change cars often. Id also take a 96 Impala SS...

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-08-06, 07:05 PM
Yeah dude I hear that, I drove a '90 D'Elegance with the 307 and it was a dog. A total and absolute dog, but the choke on that one was stuck so that may have hurt it also, either way, I would never buy a 307 as a daily driver car, now if i was to rip out the engine and hot rod it, then I would definetly go with the Brougham, and it wouldnt matter the engine.

brougham
03-08-06, 07:08 PM
Hey I'm just going off 1/4 mile times... They both run a 17.1 as quoted on www.car-stats.com

All I know is when you actually drive both of them the Cadillac is faster. You could even feel the difference if you took both cars out at the same time and switched drivers. Either way I like those Lincolns. If you get one you'll like it unless it breaks down all the time.

96Fleetwood
03-08-06, 07:15 PM
I have owned both. 1993 Town Car Cartier, a 1991 Brougham, and a 1996 Fleetwood Brougham. Both were FULLY loaded. Sure the TC had a few more options than the FWB, but as far as the driving experience goes, the FWB is such a better car. Better made and far more reliable. I had so many issues with my TC that I ended up almost giving it away with a trunk full of parts that needed to be installed for the car to run correctly and for the electronics to stop whacking out. The 4.6 liter in the TC was a slug compared to the LT1. The 4.6 had similar power output to the 305 5.0 in my 1991 Fleetwood.

Just my .02$.. I will never own another Ford product unless it has the triton series engine.

N0DIH
03-08-06, 07:28 PM
HP costs fuel. Laws of physics. You want power, LT1, then it will take x amount of a/f to get it. You can make things somewhat more efficient, but at the % efficiency of modern cars, one to another won't make much of a difference at the pump.

LT1 FWB w/2.56's were rated at 26 highway. And any year TC, or any other car with a V8 making 260 hp and 330 lb/ft torque will use around the same amount of fuel, give or take a little, around 5% or so.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-08-06, 07:30 PM
I have owned both. 1993 Town Car Cartier, a 1991 Brougham, and a 1996 Fleetwood Brougham. Both were FULLY loaded. Sure the TC had a few more options than the FWB, but as far as the driving experience goes, the FWB is such a better car. Better made and far more reliable. I had so many issues with my TC that I ended up almost giving it away with a trunk full of parts that needed to be installed for the car to run correctly and for the electronics to stop whacking out. The 4.6 liter in the TC was a slug compared to the LT1. The 4.6 had similar power output to the 305 5.0 in my 1991 Fleetwood.

Just my .02$.. I will never own another Ford product unless it has the triton series engine.

Yeah you're one of the few that had a Town Car that was totally unreliable. Most are very very reliable. 300k miles is not uncommon in a well maintained Town Car.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-08-06, 07:32 PM
All I know is when you actually drive both of them the Cadillac is faster. You could even feel the difference if you took both cars out at the same time and switched drivers. Either way I like those Lincolns. If you get one you'll like it unless it breaks down all the time.

Do you mean a stock 5.7 LO5 or your 5.7 LO5? Because your 5.7 will almost keep up with a LT1 FWB. So it will walk on by a 4.6 like its standing still.





Hah! Look it's my 3591'st post! Thats a good number b/c my car weighs 3591 lbs stock!

96Fleetwood
03-08-06, 07:44 PM
Yeah, it was unfortunate. My TC was a very low mileage Florida car, 2 tone exterior, moonroof, JBL audio, BBS wheels, and really was a eye catcher. The TC did not have the "heavy duty" feel of the FWB either. My FWB is modified, but even when it was stock it felt better handling wise and @75-80mph than my TC. The TC also did not get the attention my FWB does. Today I went to Advance Auto to pick up some parts and I had three people inquire who owned the Cadillac in the parking lot. It is a good feeling...

Anyways, I have no doubt that the TC could have made 300K... it was just alot of electrical gremlins that haunted that car. The LT1 on the other hand has been flawless in 90 degree Miami weather with the A/C on and stuck in 1 hour of traffic each way daily.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-08-06, 07:48 PM
True, the FWB definetly is more of an attention grabber..people see that car and really respect it...you dont see many of them. With a Town Car, you'd get respect too, but not as much..like you wont have people come up to you and compliment you...probably because its not as visually stimulating and there are a lot of them around.



Which brings me to my next point. How come Lincoln was selling 130,000 TC's a year, and Caddy only sold about 25k a year?!?!?

Makes ya wonder doesnt it..

brougham
03-09-06, 12:06 AM
Do you mean a stock 5.7 LO5 or your 5.7 LO5? Because your 5.7 will almost keep up with a LT1 FWB. So it will walk on by a 4.6 like its standing still.





Hah! Look it's my 3591'st post! Thats a good number b/c my car weighs 3591 lbs stock!

Mine is a stock 5.7L one. I never done anything to it.

youbetcha77
03-09-06, 12:07 AM
Who cares how fast it goes. Nothing rides like a Town Car. Nothing gets looks like a Town Car. People were far more impressed by my Lincoln than my Cadillac. I was considering buying a 93-up fleetwood, but someone told me it looked like a Roadmaster, so I thought, hmmmm, maybe not. I have drove one, but I didnt think they rode as good and they definitely dont get as good as mileage. But when your looking at luxury cars your going to sacrifice something. I would still like to own a 95-up fleetwood just to have one and try it out as a daily driver. Overall, nothing compares to my town car. I have two of them and love them. I do however, bigtime miss my sixty special.

Blaze

AElayyat
03-09-06, 01:17 AM
I've always loved the 90-92 Broughams, and I like the 93-96's even though they lack some of the features of the Town Cars, and generally, they seemed older and less modern than the Town Cars. Anyways, I would definetly love to purchase a 90-92 Brougham D'Elegance, just as long as it didnt have the 307. And I suppose if I found a nice LT1 FWB in the colors I like, I may consider purchasing it.

Anyways, what are your dislikes and likes with this bodystyle? (from your own experience please!)

Other than the power difference, are there any other big differences between the 90-92 model and 94-96's other than the looks and interior?

Has anyone owned a 90-97 Town Car and a 90-96 Brougham? Can you tell me the biggest differences in the way they drive?

I work at a dealership, and I have drove (so far) 2 93 Fleetwood Broughams (both with the Brougham Package) and 2 97 Town Cars (1 Cartier the other Sig. Sieres).

I have to say this, I have always liked the look of the Town Cars, and I think that they are good cars, but I must give it up to Cadillac. The only plus for the Town Car over the Caddy, is that the Town Car is a hair quiter in the ride, but the Caddy's have more power, better handeling, and softer rides, in my opinion. I also think that the leather GM used in the Caddy's is nicer than that in the Town Car. I hope this helps.

DopeStar 156
03-09-06, 01:32 AM
I'm gonna have to go the other way on this one..... having driven 80's Town Cars, 90's Town Cars, late 80's Broughams, and mid 90's Fleetwoods I'll summarize in the following. The Town Cars built from 1990-1997 have a very blah design. There's nothing to them really and the design does simply nothing for me. The 80's Town Cars are the opposite. Very sharp cars all around inside and out but when compared to a Brougham from the same time period, the design meets it's match and begins to fall short. The Town Car's 302 in comparison to the Caddy's 307 falls short from my own personal experience and comparisons. That's the whole reason why I own my red 89 as opposed to a black 88 Town Car which I compared both cars back to back and the Cadillac won. I've driven a 94 Town car and a 94 Fleetwood and once again the Fleetwood beat the piss outta the Lincoln in both power and design. The Fleetwood's more eye catching. Now comparing the boxy 80's style Broughams to the 90's Town Cars isn't the same as is comparing the 80's Town Cars to a mid 90's Fleetwood. What you should do if you're ready to go out and purchase one of these fine machines is to test drive all of them and make your own comparisons. Make sure what car you're testing out is in top mechanical condition too. (I think that Brougham you drove with the busted choke gave it a bad rep, I have no complaints about the way mine runs/drives) I'm not Lincoln bashing, as I do love them too. It was a really hard choice between that black 88 Town Car and my red 89 Fleetwood Brougham but when placed back to back, the Fleetwood clearly won that battle.

Katshot
03-09-06, 05:12 AM
HP costs fuel. Laws of physics. You want power, LT1, then it will take x amount of a/f to get it. You can make things somewhat more efficient, but at the % efficiency of modern cars, one to another won't make much of a difference at the pump.

LT1 FWB w/2.56's were rated at 26 highway. And any year TC, or any other car with a V8 making 260 hp and 330 lb/ft torque will use around the same amount of fuel, give or take a little, around 5% or so.

That's not always a fair statement. Perfect example is the LT1 cars. They net better mileage than many cars with similar power.

caddycruiser
03-09-06, 07:22 AM
True, the FWB definetly is more of an attention grabber..people see that car and really respect it...you dont see many of them. With a Town Car, you'd get respect too, but not as much..like you wont have people come up to you and compliment you...probably because its not as visually stimulating and there are a lot of them around.



Which brings me to my next point. How come Lincoln was selling 130,000 TC's a year, and Caddy only sold about 25k a year?!?!?

Makes ya wonder doesnt it..

That's not exactly a strong argument to make. From the start, neither the Fleetwood or the older Brougham were intended to just be pumped out of the plants non-stop and end up in rental and livery fleets constantly. The Caddy's were always intended to be a little rarer and a little more special, and not as cookie-cutter, see one on every block kind of a deals as a Town Car.

But, at the same time, Caddy did make quite a bit of fleet sales (Katshot knows first hand, when it comes to limo converts) out of every year's production numbers, but still probably not as many Town Cars as got used.

So, like I first said, the main reason for the lower numbers is that the Fleetwood was never meant to be as "everywhere" and common, or typically have a row of them sitting at every dealers lot, with big discounts being a key attraction to selling them...that was more of the Town Car's plot in life.

And after watching all the videos I have from Cadillac, particularly the one about how the car was designed and how it should be sold, it's pretty clear that the Cadillac is meant to stand out and have a slightly different range of buyers than your garden variety TC...

A TC is nice, just as many have said, but NOWHERE near as special as a Fleetwood/Brougham that has been treated well in it's life...something that, admittedly, is getting harder and harder to find, but can be done.

Could the overall level of build quality on the Caddy's been better? Certainly. Could they have used a few more gadgets, or at least things like a climate control system with even the most basic adustments? Yes, probably. But as is, I'd still rather have a Caddy...

96Fleetwood
03-09-06, 07:52 AM
Another thing to point out:

Just look at what a 1996 TC and 1996 FWB with the same mileage are bringing. The FWB is going UP in value from what I have seen.

A 1996 TC Cartier with ~50K miles will bring no more than $8K.
A 1996 FWB with ~50K miles will bring no more than $15K.

But to each his own.. for me, it is the Fleetwood all the way (this is a Cadillac forum :) so there is bias).

Katshot
03-09-06, 08:18 AM
I'm not dying to go dig up annual sales records but I can tell you that until 1997, the Fleetwoods far outsold the Town Car in livery fleets. Rentals? I couldn't say.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-09-06, 12:00 PM
I work at a dealership, and I have drove (so far) 2 93 Fleetwood Broughams (both with the Brougham Package) and 2 97 Town Cars (1 Cartier the other Sig. Sieres).

I have to say this, I have always liked the look of the Town Cars, and I think that they are good cars, but I must give it up to Cadillac. The only plus for the Town Car over the Caddy, is that the Town Car is a hair quiter in the ride, but the Caddy's have more power, better handeling, and softer rides, in my opinion. I also think that the leather GM used in the Caddy's is nicer than that in the Town Car. I hope this helps.

Hmmm... I've never driven a 93-96 Fleetwood Brougham. I tried to test drive a '94 FWB with 89k miles, but the owner of the dealership wouldnt let me drive it b/c I wasnt gonna buy it at the time, so I just looked at it and sat in it.

Anyways, for 89k miles that car was in pretty poor condition. The plastic wood panels were coming off the doors...just like in my Buick. That shows lack of quality and really a lack of care by GM. "Hey this car is only gonna be made for three more years...lets not throw too much money or effort into it." Plus, the headliner was sagging a bit in the rear. Not too much, but maybe like an inch. Again, a lack of quality and care. This car was dark blue velour and on the center armrest..the velour was wearing through so you could see what was under the velour. Again, low budget, low quality. And another thing that surprised me was the seats were actually were actually quite firm. Fronts and backs, is that normal? Or was it just this example? Because when I think "Fleetwood Brougham" I think of seats that are very very soft and lazy-boy like, not this firm shit. Leave that to the germans.

Anyways from my poor experience in that FWB and the good experience in all three Town Car's I've drove, I'll take the Town Car.


But between a '92 Brougham D'Elegance 5.7 and a '96 Town Car Signature or Cartier edition....I dunno....

Katshot
03-09-06, 12:20 PM
The Caddies seat padding has a tendancy to deteriorate rather quickly. I can't remember which year it was but they eventually came out with a high-durability seat cushion material, which became standard on commercial cars (R1P, V4U, B9Q etc). The seats you sat on were most likely repadded by a local upholstry shop. I used to do them all the time. It was also quite common for the seat frames (they're actually more of a sheet metal pan) to crack and come apart. I had to custom weld and rebuild MANY. Seat backs would commonly twist, leaving the right side of the driver's seat back leaning back a bit. Personally, I always thought it was caused by drivers leaning back to get money out of their pockets. Dash pads would crack (mainly '93-'94) om the ends. "B" pillar upholstry would rub through (mainly on the driver's side). The driver's seat recliner switch would get torn out of the frame and/or tear the surrounding upholstry. The list goes on and on.

AElayyat
03-09-06, 12:21 PM
Hmmm... I've never driven a 93-96 Fleetwood Brougham. I tried to test drive a '94 FWB with 89k miles, but the owner of the dealership wouldnt let me drive it b/c I wasnt gonna buy it at the time, so I just looked at it and sat in it.

Anyways, for 89k miles that car was in pretty poor condition. The plastic wood panels were coming off the doors...just like in my Buick. That shows lack of quality and really a lack of care by GM. "Hey this car is only gonna be made for three more years...lets not throw too much money or effort into it." Plus, the headliner was sagging a bit in the rear. Not too much, but maybe like an inch. Again, a lack of quality and care. This car was dark blue velour and on the center armrest..the velour was wearing through so you could see what was under the velour. Again, low budget, low quality. And another thing that surprised me was the seats were actually were actually quite firm. Fronts and backs, is that normal? Or was it just this example? Because when I think "Fleetwood Brougham" I think of seats that are very very soft and lazy-boy like, not this firm shit. Leave that to the germans.

Anyways from my poor experience in that FWB and the good experience in all three Town Car's I've drove, I'll take the Town Car.


But between a '92 Brougham D'Elegance 5.7 and a '96 Town Car Signature or Cartier edition....I dunno....

Based on what I have seen, (I am not being biased here) but the Caddys have better build quality/matierials. For example look at a Caddy w/ 80K and a Town Car w/80, the drivers side leather in the Town Car will be ready to crack, while the Fleetwood's leather still has some life to it. Now both cars will have been maintained the same, garaged, etc.

I also like some of the other members here think that the Fleetwood looks more elegant and luxerious than the Town Car.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-09-06, 12:41 PM
Well the Fleetwood certainly stands out more than a Town Car. It's definetly got much more presence. It's a real throwback to the '70s models, whereas the Town Car fits in more in the '90s.

In that '96 Executive Series I almost bought with 134k miles, the leather was in mint condition, and it was very very supple and high quality. In the '94 Signature Series I drove with 149k miles, the leather was starting to crack, around the edges of the seat, but it was nothing too bad. The leather in the Lincolns always seemed more soft and supple, whereas the GM leather always seemed firmer and more like a vinyl IMO.

Adam
03-09-06, 12:55 PM
well that goes back also to how well the vehicle was maintained. the previous owner probably didnt give a damn about it.




Anyways, for 89k miles that car was in pretty poor condition. The plastic wood panels were coming off the doors...just like in my Buick. That shows lack of quality and really a lack of care by GM. "Hey this car is only gonna be made for three more years...lets not throw too much money or effort into it." Plus, the headliner was sagging a bit in the rear. Not too much, but maybe like an inch. Again, a lack of quality and care. This car was dark blue velour and on the center armrest..the velour was wearing through so you could see what was under the velour. Again, low budget, low quality. And another thing that surprised me was the seats were actually were actually quite firm. Fronts and backs, is that normal? Or was it just this example? Because when I think "Fleetwood Brougham" I think of seats that are very very soft and lazy-boy like, not this firm shit. Leave that to the germans.

Anyways from my poor experience in that FWB and the good experience in all three Town Car's I've drove, I'll take the Town Car.


But between a '92 Brougham D'Elegance 5.7 and a '96 Town Car Signature or Cartier edition....I dunno....

but anyway, i had a 96 TC for about a week, had tranny problems and a replacement transmission. i sold it to a friend of mine who put the new tranny in and the car runs and looks like it just came off the show room floor. its juiced of course but rides like a dream. i love the car and wish i hadnt sold it. but it was nothing compared to my Fleetwood. everything about the Fleetwood i liked more than the TC. the style, the interior, size, hell even the engine (even though it was the LO5 there are plenty of performance options for them). plus the rarity factor and all... now the 90-92... well 80-92 Fleetwood Brougham/ Broughams are very nice, i love the long low look, the box style and all. but i dont think they look as good as a big body Fleetwood. but i like both for what they are. i would take a 93-96 Fleetwood over any older Cadillac (or new one for that matter save for the V series lines or a XLR).

N0DIH
03-09-06, 01:07 PM
I do admit, the seats in my 91 Deville were more cushy than my 94 Fleetwood, but the 94 Fleetwood seats (leather) are more supportive, which is what I like better. I agree, more padding would be nice though.


That's not always a fair statement. Perfect example is the LT1 cars. They net better mileage than many cars with similar power.

I didn't mean it to be a blanket statement, but it is fairly accurate. The 91 Deville vs the LT1 is a good case you are correct. The EPA rating is 16/25 on the 4.9L Deville, and the EPA rating on the LT1 w/2.56 is 17/26. Even with 2.93's it is 17/25.

But go compare a 1994 TC, Cadillac Fleetwood LT1 and a Lexus LS400 for fuel economy. The Lexus and LT1 share HP, and fuel economy. Even though the LS400 is a 4.0L V8, it is still getting the same mileage. The Lincoln is 210 hp, and same mileage. That is my point. Same year to same year, keeping average techology the same (like not comparing a LT1 to a 4.9L, or a LT1 to a L05, etc).

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-09-06, 01:44 PM
How does the Fleetwood Brougham's steering compare to the Town Cars? The Town Car's steering is very very light, but it is driver adjustable. The Fleetwood Brougham's steering is speed sensitive, if the 93-96's steering is anything like the 1990 I drove, its much lighter than a Town Car's.


I really need to go out and test drive them back to back.

caddycruiser
03-09-06, 01:45 PM
The Caddies seat padding has a tendancy to deteriorate rather quickly. I can't remember which year it was but they eventually came out with a high-durability seat cushion material, which became standard on commercial cars (R1P, V4U, B9Q etc). The seats you sat on were most likely repadded by a local upholstry shop. I used to do them all the time. It was also quite common for the seat frames (they're actually more of a sheet metal pan) to crack and come apart. I had to custom weld and rebuild MANY. Seat backs would commonly twist, leaving the right side of the driver's seat back leaning back a bit. Personally, I always thought it was caused by drivers leaning back to get money out of their pockets. Dash pads would crack (mainly '93-'94) om the ends. "B" pillar upholstry would rub through (mainly on the driver's side). The driver's seat recliner switch would get torn out of the frame and/or tear the surrounding upholstry. The list goes on and on.

Weird that you mention this, because I was just about to ask on here if anyone knew of any seating material changes over the years.

I always enjoyed the "just right" level of softness and firmness in the '93 Fleetwood, but then noticed that side by side, it seems almost like my '95 has firmer padding in the seats. Both are Broughams, and the leather feels about equal, but the padding, particularly in the back seat, is considerably firmer than it is in the '93.

As for TC's, though I do like most everything about the newer ones (never sat in a "box" version), the one thing I could never stand--the uncomfortable, MARSHMALLOW seats. Soft is one thing, but when the padding is so weak, your butt sinks down and onto the metal frame underneath, something is wrong.

I noticed this in EVERY '03-06 model I've been in, some moreso than others, and it always bugged me in exactly the same way as my grandfather's '94 Ford Aerostar van...seats look nice and are covered in nice materials, but it'd be nice to have so decently firmed up padding so my arse didn't have to rest on the metal frame underneath.

Katshot
03-09-06, 02:54 PM
I do admit, the seats in my 91 Deville were more cushy than my 94 Fleetwood, but the 94 Fleetwood seats (leather) are more supportive, which is what I like better. I agree, more padding would be nice though.



I didn't mean it to be a blanket statement, but it is fairly accurate. The 91 Deville vs the LT1 is a good case you are correct. The EPA rating is 16/25 on the 4.9L Deville, and the EPA rating on the LT1 w/2.56 is 17/26. Even with 2.93's it is 17/25.

But go compare a 1994 TC, Cadillac Fleetwood LT1 and a Lexus LS400 for fuel economy. The Lexus and LT1 share HP, and fuel economy. Even though the LS400 is a 4.0L V8, it is still getting the same mileage. The Lincoln is 210 hp, and same mileage. That is my point. Same year to same year, keeping average techology the same (like not comparing a LT1 to a 4.9L, or a LT1 to a L05, etc).

But what is the final drive ratio on those cars? Plus, don't forget the EPA estimates don't get real specific. Different sub-models (like SLS/STS) have the same EPA ratings even though they get quite different actual numbers.

Katshot
03-09-06, 02:55 PM
How does the Fleetwood Brougham's steering compare to the Town Cars? The Town Car's steering is very very light, but it is driver adjustable. The Fleetwood Brougham's steering is speed sensitive, if the 93-96's steering is anything like the 1990 I drove, its much lighter than a Town Car's.


I really need to go out and test drive them back to back.

Don't later model T/Cs have rack and pinion steering?

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-09-06, 06:18 PM
Up until atleast 1999, Town Cars had variable assist (driver selectable) recirculating ball steering. As for 2000 and newer, I dont have the information beyond 1999.

As for the 1998-2006 Town Cars, I would never buy one. I think they are very ugly, plus they don't ride very well, nothing like a 1990-97 Town Car. My father picked one up as a rental when my deVille was in the bodyshop getting the driver's side door fixed. I rode in it twice and was not impressed at all.

If the choice was between that and a LT1 Fleetwood Brougham, I would take the FWB in a heartbeat, I would even take a '81 Brougham with the V 8-6-4 over a 98-06 Town Car.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-10-06, 02:00 AM
Well after racing a Saturn Ion sedan tonight and barely winning, I've decided my next car must have significantly more power... This LT1 FWB is starting to look more appealing FDC or no FDC.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-10-06, 02:09 AM
And here's my dream LT1 FWB!

http://i21.ebayimg.com/02/i/06/68/35/8a_12.JPG
http://i5.ebayimg.com/04/i/06/6e/bb/5a_12.JPG
1995 FWB, Calypso Green, Neutral Leather interior.

1992 DTS (2.93:1 performance ratio) 0-100: 26.7
1994 Fleetwood (2.56:1 rear axle) 0-100: 22.8
1995 Grand Marquis (similar to Town Car) 0-100: 24.3

96Fleetwood
03-10-06, 07:10 AM
It is very easy to get these cars to run 14s with just bolt ons... a good friend of mine runs 13.4 with his 1995 Fleetwood in the 1/4. :eek:

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-10-06, 11:48 AM
Yeah I remember when I had my LT1 Roadmaster, I would look through the Jegs and Summit Racing Catalogs and I would dream about what I would put on that car if I had the money.

LT4 Conversion kit: $2000, ~425 hp
Powerdyne Centrifugal Supercharger Kits: 6.0PSI: $5690.69 ~390 hp.

If I could do them both together, It would be around 640hp! Which with the 4500lb curb weight would put this at a 11-12 second 1/4 mile!

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-14-06, 02:38 PM
Hey does a 94-96 FWB handle better than a '90-97 Town Car? I would imagine its a bit better, but I'm not positive. The Town Car has such vague steering its not even funny. It just feels totally disconnected from the road, especially on the 90-94's. By '95, they added the driver adjustable steering so that helped a bit.

SDCaddyLacky
10-08-10, 08:27 AM
Sorry to resurrect this thread guys, but I recently drove my dads friends grey Sig 94 town car with a grey interior.

I begged him to drive it, so he let me. I owned a 93 town car Executive series, and this Sig series was just like the Executive just with nicer seats and that was it!! The car had way less miles than mine did, his only had 92,000 on it, and it's very well kept.

My thoughts....I liked it a lot, I miss the old school interior design on these TC's, the seats were really nice and wide (because it's a Sig), wider than my 94 FWB. The Caddy leather seats feels and looks more supple and higher quality than the TC's, but the TC's seats feel a little more solid.

The engine was also very smooth, but again, it doesn't have that brute force power like the LT1 has, and it's gets whiny when you push on it. After cruising around a bit I noticed the transmission whine (Ford AODE culprit) when shifting, it got so annoying, I think I'm truly spoiled by the complete silence of the FWB.

Anyways not to drag this thread along, but even though the TC's of this era were nice, the 93-96 FWB's beats the crap out of them in every segment. I liked how the TC rode, but my FWB rides a little nicer, it's not floaty boaty like the TC, and the handling is definitely way better than any 90-97 TC. The Caddy seems and feels more stable, but in the Townie, I always felt like it bobed and weaved often with a ton of body roll, it truly feels like your back in 1970, than 1994. My friend actually gets nausea when he rode in my 93, it was funny.

The TC was a little quieter on the streets, but once you got on the freeway, it was like driving a economy car! It was actually pretty loud, my FWB is a lot quieter on the freeway than this Sig TC was.

also like I have mentioned in the past, the 90-94 TC interiors are overated, people act like they are high quality or something, this is far from the truth.
If anything, the 93-96 FWB have a better build inside than the TC's, but not by much. They both arent great considering they are luxury cars, but with the horribly cheap dash on the TC, and the plastic, and cheap low grade vinyl on the door panels and dash makes these cars feel less worthy, and that hurts.

Plus the little things inside have a better feel to them on the 93-96 FWB's than in the TC's like the window switches and upper door panel trim. Nothing on the inside of my Caddy feels like the trim is about come off, or snap in pieces. for gods sakes, the middle of the TC steering wheel and the whole dashboard is cheap creaky plastic instead of padded vinyl like in the FWB's.

It's the small stuff that I look at, and so far the Caddy wins. the FWB's feel so much bigger to drive, when I got behind the wheel of that TC, it felt really small to me, almost compact. The FWB's feel more substantial and more important when driving around, one of the huge differences people will notice going from a 90's TC to a 93-96 FWB is the weight. The Caddy has a heavy duty feel to it, not as heavy as the 70's Cadillacs, but a certain quality of weight that you feel when driving and opening the doors. This is what the TC lacks. The TC body is solid and tight feeling, but the doors, the hood and even the trunk feels too lightweight for a large BOF car. It matters when you go over bad road surfaces, you get jolted more in the TC, it doesn't absorb bumps as nicely like the FWB does, but it does great on smooth surfaces.

After driving around in that thing for a good half hour or so, I can honestly say without bias since I love Lincolns, Cadillac should kept on making the Fleetwoods, because they were so much better than the TC's in the 90's. I truly don't understand why they sold so badly in it's last few years. The only reason why the TC's get so much praise is because of the rear Air Suspension which does make a big difference in ride quality. If guys would only install rear air springs in their FWB's, I bet they would have that floaty (riding on clouds) ride that many people enjoy. Because TC's do feel like your riding above the ground, it's weird. At the same time it doesn't mean that the ride quality is better, it just feels nice on perfectly flat road surfaces, once you ride on rough patches or uneven streets, thats when the TC can fail.