I've been using www.carsurvey.org everytime i needed to buy a new car to see if they are lemons or not. Its a great site and im suprised to find the 93-96 fleetwood reviews being very few. I havent yet submitted my review because i feel i need to have a few ten-thousand miles under my belt first.

Edmunds and MSN are two other good ones for these cars. I don't know of any other magazine reviews of these cars that I haven't already posted:

http://s26.photobucket.com/albums/c101/caddycruiser/Car%20Articles/

but we do have a review section on this board, which we could probably all write a little something on when we have the chance.

Edmunds and MSN are two other good ones for these cars. I don't know of any other magazine reviews of these cars that I haven't already posted:

http://s26.photobucket.com/albums/c101/caddycruiser/Car%20Articles/

but we do have a review section on this board, which we could probably all write a little something on when we have the chance.

Thanks for reminding me why I'm now a former MT/C&D subscriber. GM could have done alot more to keep these cars afloat, but the buff books had a hand in drumming them out of existence with their misguided notions.

Thanks for reminding me why I'm now a former MT/C&D subscriber. GM could have done alot more to keep these cars afloat, but the buff books had a hand in drumming them out of existence with their misguided notions.

Sorry, I don't believe that for a second. I'm a subscriber, and always have been, and sometimes you just have to call it as it is. I've yet to read one professional review of these cars that wasn't spot on with what I would say myself, owning 3. Most all are actually quite positive, in most every regard, and they come off looking quite good (if not great), truth be told.

They went off the market because people just weren't buying them anymore, and GM decided to switch over to more profitable and popular SUV's rather than put money into updating the cars. It's a little sad, given that the Fords did live on, but big cars like this still aren't a big segment of the market. Magazines are interesting to read and get different views from, but they don't really have any effect on people not buying what they don't want anymore.

People were pleased with proper (soft) riding cars for 40 years before the buff books succeeded in convincing the public that (1) luxurious cars feature harsh rides and (2) cushy suspensions are hallmarks of jalopies.

They were spot on in their criticisms of the build quality in those specific articles, but their decades long quest for unending ridicule of the entire BOF/V8/6P/Living-room-on-wheels concept was completely uncalled for. They should be hanged for what their biases against big cars did to the auto scene.

I wrote one carsurvey.org about my Roadmaster, that's almost as good as a LT1 Brougham.

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_59735.html

People were pleased with proper (soft) riding cars for 40 years before the buff books succeeded in convincing the public that (1) luxurious cars feature harsh rides and (2) cushy suspensions are hallmarks of jalopies.

They were spot on in their criticisms of the build quality in those specific articles, but their decades long quest for unending ridicule of the entire BOF/V8/6P/Living-room-on-wheels concept was completely uncalled for. They should be hanged for what their biases against big cars did to the auto scene.

Okay, but still that has nothing to do with influencing what people got out their checkbooks for--ESPECIALLY not the typical buyer who bought these cars new. Over time, they just started looking elsewhere, and they didn't sell as well. Granted, some better updates probably would have helped, but it was a dying segment and they were much better off from a business standpoint building Tahoes & Yukons instead.

But we don't need to get into that anymore. I just have to keep saying that if you think it's a media bias that killed cars like this, you're nuts, plain and simple (and I mean that in the nicest of ways:thumbsup: ). Did most reviewers love them? No, but you wouldn't expect them too. They were big, heavy, floaty boats and the comments were exactly as such...you can't be biased when you tell the truth, and they never said that they had to imitate Hondas or BMWs to be worthy in their eyes. Different strokes for different folks, and eventually people just changed their minds. That's it, and no more.

Actually, this is kinda like the argument some make about professional reviewers having a bias against GM's, Fords, etc., everytime they don't take first place in something. Forget the fact that there's actual reasons..."It just has to be a conspiracy, and you know, Honda and Toyota pay them off all the time." Sad part is, a lot of people still think that's true...
_______________

But enough of that, argument closed:thumbsup:

Back to those magazine articles I have, scanned, and posted. I actually just found another one for the '92 Roadmaster sedan, before it was intro'd, and Motor Trend did a little short take on a preproduction car. Nothing too special, except it makes odd mention of a "suede" interior upholstery choice that never happened, and actually has a picture of an interior that has what looks like mostly leather with a little suede thrown in...caught my eye, and I never noticed the article before. It'll be a while before I get to the magazines again, but I'll eventually get it posted up too.

I wrote one carsurvey.org about my Roadmaster, that's almost as good as a LT1 Brougham.

http://www.carsurvey.org/review_59735.html

I was actually just reading through those a bit ago, and instantly thought that one had to be yours when I saw the mention of age & Minnesota. Guess I was right!

Sorry, CaddyCruiser, but you're wrong in more than one instance.
If you catch the Barrett-Jackson auctions on a regular basis, you'll see how the ignorant media destroyed the Corvair by following the buffonery of Ralph Nader.
The guys at Barrett-Jackson, during the auction of a Corvair truck (!) noted how that particular make was far advanced for its time and should have remained in production but was killed due to bean counter fright.
Experts with far more knowledge than I have, went on for an unusually long time about the Corvair debacle, noting very well, how PERCEPTION, fostered by idiot reporters in your local paper, besmirched the reputation of a fine automobile which might have been wildly successful except for the stupidity of sheeple.
But, yes, the majority of car buyers never even heard of MotorTrend or Car&Driver. So the opinions in those magazines doesn't amount to a spit ina tornado.
The exception is the silly "Car of The Year" trophies which are then used in advertising.
Consider this: GM killed off the large cars and you will still hear cops pine for their big Chevys. The cops know all too well that the Crown Vic - until very recently - had too few welds at the interface of the floor pan and trunk divider. Thus, when the CVs were rear ended and the gas tank split, more than one cop died in the inferno of flaming fuel that entered due to shoddy construction.
Verify this at Allpar dot com and listen to the guys touting the Chrysler products in the old days where the above situation would NEVER happen. Chrysler based squads had EXTRA welds in that particular location and others and were the bane of many dealers because of it when repairs were necessary.
Perception is reality. GM blew it. The bean counters won out over the car guys. Total, arrogant stupidity took over and GM lost buyer loyalty.
Many causes, sure, but the BigBodies were not that much of a loss leader and projected the necessary IMAGE that GM needed and still needs.

end of rant:rant2:

Yeah, reading that shows that i've matured quite a bit in the last 2.5 years..

I just have to keep saying that if you think it's a media bias that killed cars like this, you're nuts, plain and simple (and I mean that in the nicest of ways:thumbsup: ).

The mocking tone practically dripped off those pages when the mags came out, and it's still there for anyone who would only open their eyes to see. Most "professional" reviewers are anything but.

The buff books are in fact read by a small percentage of the car buying public, but their assertions have been sadly parroted by outlets and individuals with influence on up the proverbial ladder for years. It's as plain as day to anyone who would only look at the person the automakers are trying to sell sedans to today - apparently, Joe Blow thinks his car has to be fit for a gymkhana or else it's crap, and comfort is secondary. It's a ridiculous notion for the needs of 90 percent of the American car buying public, yet there it is.

Your use of emoticons and exclamation points does nothing to dull the insulting nature of your personal accusations toward me.

Well, still it's not a completely valid point to make, but I see both sides. Magazines are magazines, and just as one example, if they didn't inject a little bit of "zip" into some of the things they write, just for the heck of it, people wouldn't but them.

No, most didn't like these cars, but so what. That didn't affect GM stopping production, and neither did it really affect the larger majority of who used to buy them going elsewhere. Lots still wish they'd come back, or had continued, but that's just how the market works sometimes.

The Media has a huge influence in AMerica, and it is really sad. Not to move the conversation away from cars for a minute, but an example of the stranglehold the media has on our society is obvious when you think about how many people care about the split of Brittany SPears and the Federline fellow. Boy, that was all over TV, news coverage, magazines, newspapers, etc.
My guess is that very few people actually CARE. But that doesn't stop the media from pushing some sort of agenda on AMerica.

Example over with. The media sucks, plain and simple.
To pinpoint one reason for the demise of GM's full size car lineup in the mid-1990s is futile. But IMO it is fair to say that crappy magazine articles and persuaded opinions had a hand in the demise.

Truth be told, CHevy had a large share of the Police and fleet market. This is not small potatoes... The blue-haired crowd that bought the cars were just bonus sales.

But on a platform from 1977 to B/D body was long in the tooth and retooling costs didn't outweigh the gamble to convert the RWD production plants for SUVs which became all the rage.

All the rage, you say? Yes. Why?
Well, for one gas was cheaper in the mid-1990s.
I don't like this argument much since RWD full size cars guzzled their share of gas also.

How about the media again? Rappers and movie stars like SUVs - therefore you should drive one, too. Yep, the media talked the beancounters into the burgeoning market of SUVs for the soccer moms and wannabe gangsters of AMerica.

Damn those soccer moms!!!!!