: 1993 Fleetwood Brougham road test article



CoupeDevilleRob
03-27-06, 03:44 PM
From the Nov 1992 Motor Trend. I made it smaller than the last article I posted, should be easier to read.

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h17/coupedevillerob/1993%20Cadillac%20Fleetwood%20road%20test/1993FleetwoodBrougham1.jpg

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h17/coupedevillerob/1993%20Cadillac%20Fleetwood%20road%20test/1993FleetwoodBrougham2.jpg

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h17/coupedevillerob/1993%20Cadillac%20Fleetwood%20road%20test/1993FleetwoodBrougham3.jpg

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-27-06, 03:54 PM
ooohhh another one! Thank you again!

They say it has a coolant level and a battery voltage guage. I have never seen either on a 93-96 FWB. Do they have them or is it an error?

Katshot
03-27-06, 04:16 PM
Ya gotta love those performance figures!
0-60 in 9.7sec. and the 1/4 mile in 17.0sec @ 79mph!!!!!!!!

CoupeDevilleRob
03-27-06, 07:04 PM
Ya gotta love those performance figures!
0-60 in 9.7sec. and the 1/4 mile in 17.0sec @ 79mph!!!!!!!!

And that's not even with the LT1. God I love these cars.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-27-06, 07:17 PM
The LT1 knocks that 0-60 down a second and a half!

caddycruiser
03-27-06, 08:29 PM
VERY COOL!

On another note, I have a magazine article from Car & Driver in '93 when they did a comparison test of a '93 Fleetwood base vs. a Rolls Royce. Really odd comparison, and not really descriptive of either, but still cool. I'll have to try and get it scanned and posted when I get a chance.

92cadbro
03-27-06, 08:52 PM
wow! another one!!! this shit is amazing....thanx.............

do u have the one for the 92 Brougham???

caddycruiser
03-27-06, 09:06 PM
wow! another one!!! this shit is amazing....thanx.............

do u have the one for the 92 Brougham???

Well, he posted the '91 on, and there's very little difference between a '91 & '92.

GenoTheLowrider
03-28-06, 02:19 PM
Got any for those 80s model Broughams/Devilles? That would surely be an interesting read.....

Jonas McFeely
03-28-06, 02:50 PM
jesus people,i didnt know you guys go so nuts over magazine articles on slow cadillacs. My father has every Automobile magazine to date,every Car and Driver since 1964 and tons of old car life and motor trend and road and track and few others,all from the 60's and 70's and 80's.Biggest car magazine collection ive ever seen.Plus TONS of car brochures dating back from 1941,and that one is for Buick.If you guys wanna see anything specific,im sure i can get him to scan a few things,just name the car and year.He is sending me some old cadillac brochures from the 70's and 80's as i type this,they should be here soon.Let me know...

caddycruiser
03-28-06, 05:04 PM
jesus people,i didnt know you guys go so nuts over magazine articles on slow cadillacs. My father has every Automobile magazine to date,every Car and Driver since 1964 and tons of old car life and motor trend and road and track and few others,all from the 60's and 70's and 80's.Biggest car magazine collection ive ever seen.Plus TONS of car brochures dating back from 1941,and that one is for Buick.If you guys wanna see anything specific,im sure i can get him to scan a few things,just name the car and year.He is sending me some old cadillac brochures from the 70's and 80's as i type this,they should be here soon.Let me know...

True, but most of us either never saw these specific articles before, or knew they existed, let alone probably knew much about these cars when they were new.

But now it's just cool to find stuff from "back in the day". If you have more, you should post some up too, after people request them.

My subscriptions to MT, C&D, etc. all started in the late 90's (I'm still only 19), but then had to toss out a few years for space when we moved.

Katshot
03-28-06, 07:14 PM
And that's not even with the LT1. God I love these cars.

Ahh, I was being sarcastic dude. That's friggin' slow as hell. :bigroll:

CoupeDevilleRob
03-28-06, 07:19 PM
That's pretty respectable for a car that big. You have to remember that I have to deal with a 4100 on a daily basis, any 0-60 not in the teens is a rocket ship to me.

caddycruiser
03-28-06, 08:39 PM
Regardless, it is very cool to see what professionals thought of these cars when new...all of which seems VERY much on target to everything I would say.

I wonder if there were any mag reviews of newer LT1 models?

Actually, I do remember now that I have a copy of an article from 1996 that compared the Roadmaster, Caprice, Impala SS, Fleetwood, Town Car, Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis, and MB S-Class. That was fairly interesting...and I'll have to try and get it posted up too.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
03-29-06, 09:41 AM
Yes GET THAT POSTED!!! I would love to see them compare the Town Car to the Brougham!!

92cadbro
03-29-06, 09:42 AM
I dont get it....................

I'm comparing the 1991 to the 1993 articles..........

same engines (L05).same specifications.......

the 1991 has 308 gears and does the 1-4 mile in 17.1 sec
the 1993 has 256 gears and does the 1-4 mile in 17 sec

isn't 308 gears faster than 256????????

caddycruiser
03-29-06, 11:12 AM
Yes GET THAT POSTED!!! I would love to see them compare the Town Car to the Brougham!!

I certainly will. Actually, the main point of the article (I forgot who it was actually done by), was to compare all of the "big iron" cars before a lot of them went away with GM killing theirs.

From what I remember, it had comments like this:

'96 Roadmaster: One of the fastest cars in the test, but was the sloppiest in the handling department, compared to the other GM's. Cheap interior bits.
'96 Fleetwood: Powerful, relatively crisp handling, and strong brakes, but horrible digital gauges.
'96 Caprice: One of the best "balanced" GM's, with the same level of power and refinement of the Buick, but noticeabley sharper handling. But that it also seems pointless next to an Impala SS that was only $1500 more. Cheap interior bits.
'96 Impala SS: The most impressive car in the test, with a low MSRP but the best level of power, handling, room, refinement, and style. But that the interior also had the same low-rent bits as the Caprice.
'96 Crown Victoria/Grand Marquis: The weirdest, sloppiest steering and lacking in the power department, but felt more polished overall than the GM's.
'96 Town Car: Same poor steering and lack of power as the Ford/Mercury, but also a strangely noisy interior (I think they made the comment that many trucks were quieter inside).
'96 MB S-Class: Clearly the most sophisticated and refined car, but for $91k it should be.

That's just off the top of my head...I have it saved somewhere, but it might be at home only, so it'll take a bit for me to find it and post. It's a GREAT comparo:thumbsup:

caddycruiser
03-29-06, 11:16 AM
I dont get it....................

I'm comparing the 1991 to the 1993 articles..........

same engines (L05).same specifications.......

the 1991 has 308 gears and does the 1-4 mile in 17.1 sec
the 1993 has 256 gears and does the 1-4 mile in 17 sec

isn't 308 gears faster than 256????????

A 10th of a second means nothing. Yes, there should be at least a little more of a difference, but it all depends on the conditions and the driver, which isn't mentioned.

Katshot
03-29-06, 12:58 PM
I dont get it....................

I'm comparing the 1991 to the 1993 articles..........

same engines (L05).same specifications.......

the 1991 has 308 gears and does the 1-4 mile in 17.1 sec
the 1993 has 256 gears and does the 1-4 mile in 17 sec

isn't 308 gears faster than 256????????

Are you SURE the '93 had 2.56 gears? Unlike the '91 Brougham, the '93 Fleetwood had several ratios to choose from. 2.56 gears were the "base" ratio but it could've had a 2.93, 3.08 or even 3.73 gears. It probably had either the 2.93 or 3.08 gears and that would explain the parity. It's also possible that the data was taken at different times, under different conditions. According to my book, the '93 also had a higher compression ratio (9.8:1 vs. 9.3:1) which could figure into this as well.

fleetwoodss
04-04-06, 01:02 PM
Regardless, it is very cool to see what professionals thought of these cars when new...all of which seems VERY much on target to everything I would say.

I wonder if there were any mag reviews of newer LT1 models?

Actually, I do remember now that I have a copy of an article from 1996 that compared the Roadmaster, Caprice, Impala SS, Fleetwood, Town Car, Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis, and MB S-Class. That was fairly interesting...and I'll have to try and get it posted up too.

Please POST THAT THANKS!!!:worship:

caddycruiser
04-04-06, 03:17 PM
Please POST THAT THANKS!!!:worship:

I thought I had it saved on one of my computers, but I can't find. Have a hard copy, so give me about a week to find & scan...but it is a GREAT arti:thumbsup: cle

I~LUV~Caddys8792
04-04-06, 05:32 PM
You know, if that Article liked the Fleetwood way more than the Town Car, that may actually sway my buying decesion...may is the key word.

caddycruiser
04-04-06, 06:56 PM
You know, if that Article liked the Fleetwood way more than the Town Car, that may actually sway my buying decesion...may is the key word.

Well, the Fleetwood still was not they're absolute favorite--that was the Caprice & Impala SS--but they just came off as very disappointed in the Town Car, particularly compared to the Ford & Mercury which they also weren't too hot on. Did make the comment that all of the Ford's felt quite a bit more polished (I'm thinking smoother and nicer built) than the GM's, though.

I really have to find it when I get home, and post it up...

I~LUV~Caddys8792
04-04-06, 07:26 PM
Yeah..I'd imagine the LT1's power really swayed their decesion from the TC. I'd love to see the test numbers. Which has the better skidpad raiting and which is the better handler. I would love to see what one had the better interior/exterior design in their opinion.

caddycruiser
04-17-06, 09:21 PM
FOUND IT!!

Here's the comparison article I was talking about:
http://impala.lc.cc.il.us/carsmart.html

Enjoy:thumbsup:

I~LUV~Caddys8792
04-17-06, 11:12 PM
THANK YOU!!!!!


That is exactly what I was looking for!!

caddycruiser
04-18-06, 10:01 AM
Your welcome, and I think it's one of the best, especially since it gives a nice comparison to the Fords of the same era:thumbsup:

I~LUV~Caddys8792
04-18-06, 03:31 PM
Well going by just that comparison, I'd pick the FWB over the TC.

Its funny, the FWB takes 8.4 seconds to do the 0-60, and the Town Car takes 8.8, which really isnt a big difference, but the main difference is in the passing power. IIRC, the FWB does the 50-70 in like 1.4 seconds less than the Town Car, thats a big difference!

It was neat to see a review of my Roadmaster, and yes, I do agree with them on the low budget interior. Also, they noted the FWB had firm seats, so it wasnt just that one I looked at, but maybe firm is more comfortable for a long trip.

caddycruiser
04-18-06, 05:03 PM
Well going by just that comparison, I'd pick the FWB over the TC.

Its funny, the FWB takes 8.4 seconds to do the 0-60, and the Town Car takes 8.8, which really isnt a big difference, but the main difference is in the passing power. IIRC, the FWB does the 50-70 in like 1.4 seconds less than the Town Car, thats a big difference!

It was neat to see a review of my Roadmaster, and yes, I do agree with them on the low budget interior. Also, they noted the FWB had firm seats, so it wasnt just that one I looked at, but maybe firm is more comfortable for a long trip.

Strangely enough, now that you mention it--the seats in my '95 are NOT the same as in our '93. They look the same, but the fronts are a tad firmer (hardly noticeable) and the rear is very soft in the '93 but like a rock in my '95. Jump from one car's rear seat to the other, and they feel like different cars--but both have clearly not been sat on more than once or twice.

That said, the power differences have been talked about before, but you've been in both and I can't see that making a huge difference based on what you've said before. This article is just kind of an interesting look into how a professional reviewer thought of each car when they were new.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
04-18-06, 08:21 PM
So one could take the seats out of a '93 and put them in a '94-'96?

How about the seats out of a '87-'92 D'Elegance Brougham?

caddycruiser
04-18-06, 08:47 PM
So one could take the seats out of a '93 and put them in a '94-'96?

How about the seats out of a '87-'92 D'Elegance Brougham?

Well, yeah, they're completely interchangeable in the newer ones...but it would take some work if you wanted to put a set of the older ones in a newer car (if that's what you meant).

I like each the same b/w the '93 and '95, and the fronts actually do feel pretty much identical (not sure if they're actually different or not) but the rear is NOT the same as far as the feel of the padding. Looks identical, but sure doesn't feel the same.

JAKE91
04-19-06, 12:41 PM
THANKS ROB. THAT'S MY CAR!:) SAME COLOR, MINE HAS A MOONROOF AND FULL VINYL TOP TOO. NICER WHEELS.
IT STICKERED AT CLOSE TO 40K IN' 93!:bouncy:

THIS ARTICLE GOES INTO A FILE.:worship: