93-96 RWD Fleet vs 94-99 Deville

[Cadillacboy]

Speaking of garage...LOL, I would also have the same problem .However I have to say that not only FWB also too big but also Escalade EXT or ESV .I wonder a FWB supposed to be so big ?
For instance a '95 still bigger than any ESV by a few inches .I think turning circle should be more concern (if you have a big garage to park in a FBW) and makes me wonder if it's worse than an XJ40 or not ?

[MachX]

Actually, if you look them up, the 5.7l offered better fuel economy on regular pump, and near a half ton more weight while the 4.9 was worse despite its smaller size and requires premium! That being said, you will never lack for legroom in a Deville made after 1989, so unless you really NEED to have 6 passenger seating, or towing capacity, the 97 and up Deville's are the way to go. They have newer interiors (the FW uses 89-93 Deville interior bits), and great power from the more modern Northstar engine. I don't think interior room is a factor in either car for 4 passengers, my 91 Deville has limousine legroom for rear seat peeps even with the driver's seat all the way back. And as for size, bumper to bumper length doesn't automatically mean a 'bigger' car. To test this, I parked my 205" 91 Deville next to a new 215" Town Car, and to the naked eye both cars looked about the same in size and stature. You couldn't see the 10 inches in length until you looked at the bumpers. The Lincoln has a raked profile which extends the bumpers to make up the length difference. But I sat in a new Townie at the auto show and the interior really isn't any bigger. Cadillac has really mastered the technique of efficient space useage in the Deville. In fact, go to consumerguide.com and compare the 1990-1993 Deville to the 2007 Town Car and the 10 inch shorter Deville has MORE front AND rear legroom! 42/40.3 for the Deville and 41.7/39.6! And a 94-99 Deville has near identical interior space as a 92-96 FW despite being a full 16 inches shorter! The 94-99 Deville is only 2 inches narrower and its trunk is only 1 cubic foot smaller. Fuel economy is slightly better with the Northstar and acceleration in the lighter 94-99 Deville is a second or more better to 60, in fact the LT1 powered FW is even slower than a 4.9 powered car. Unless you really want 16 more inches of hood to stare at while driving, or you really want a 4400lb car, take the more modern Caddy, because there really isn't any comparison.

[I~LUV~Caddys8792]

Originally Posted by MachX

in fact the LT1 powered FW is even slower than a 4.9 powered car. Unless you really want 16 more inches of hood to stare at while driving, or you really want a 4400lb car, take the more modern Caddy, because there really isn't any comparison.

I don't know where you got that from, but the LT1 is quite faster than the 4.9...from a stop, from 30, from 60, and it's atleast 5 seconds quicker in the 0-100...20 seconds for the LT1 v. 26-27 in the 4.9. In the '94 and '95 Cadillac brochure, they quoted 0-60 times...the LT1 FWB was 8.5 and the 4.9 deVille was 9.3....so even though those times are conservative, the LT1 is still faster. And if you're concerned about ease to work on, reliability, simplicity, and cost to run, the LT1 or L05 Fleetwood is light years ahead of the 4.9 or Northstar Cadillacs.

[MachX]

Originally Posted by I~LUV~Caddys8792

I don't know where you got that from, but the LT1 is quite faster than the 4.9...from a stop, from 30, from 60, and it's atleast 5 seconds quicker in the 0-100...20 seconds for the LT1 v. 26-27 in the 4.9. In the '94 and '95 Cadillac brochure, they quoted 0-60 times...the LT1 FWB was 8.5 and the 4.9 deVille was 9.3....so even though those times are conservative, the LT1 is still faster. And if you're concerned about ease to work on, reliability, simplicity, and cost to run, the LT1 or L05 Fleetwood is light years ahead of the 4.9 or Northstar Cadillacs.

My mistake, I thought I had seen somewhere that a 4.9 could hit 60 in 7.5, but I know that they are quicker than 9.3. Either way, my point was that FW's were slowed by size, and weight without providing any real benefit in interior or luggage space. Northstar cars outrun the LT1 FW's easily, are much more modern, and have equal, if not more interior/luggage room. Why have an extra 16 inches of size and 500 lbs or more extra weight if it provides no benefit?

[I~LUV~Caddys8792]

Originally Posted by MachX

My mistake, I thought I had seen somewhere that a 4.9 could hit 60 in 7.5

More like 7.9-8.3 seconds. The LT1 FWB is just a tad bit quicker...like 7.5-7.9 seconds.

Originally Posted by MachX

Why have an extra 16 inches of size and 500 lbs or more extra weight if it provides no benefit?

Well it does provide some benefits....more isolation, smoother ride, better towing capacity. Not to mention a 350 Brougham is soooo much easier to work on than a Northstar Cadillac.

[MachX]

Yes, if you need to tow, the FW is obviously the choice. But in all other aspects, including performance and fuel economy, Northstar Deville's are superior to the old-hat land barge. Naturally, for rareity and value the FW's will be collector's cars being the last of the land barge, but for every day use, 225 inches of car is hard to manoeuvre and park. I love the modern Caddy on a diet, they've packaged them to have the same luggage and interior space but much improved driveability over the old school. And most reviewers have said that the modern cars absorb bumps as well as the barges without all the excess body roll, especially if you have the CCR or MRC.

[I~LUV~Caddys8792]

Good points, but at this point in my life, I'd still take the FWB over any 4.9 or Northstar Cadillac because they're more reliable, durable, and cheaper to fix/maintain.

[96Fleetwood]

I bought a 1999 Deville Concours 3 months ago as a daily driver. I sold it for profit 4 weeks later... the Front Wheel Cadillacs just do not ride like my Fleetwood Brougham, then again I did upgrade almost every complaint I had with the car.

[90Brougham350]

Originally Posted by MachX

But in all other aspects, including performance and fuel economy, Northstar Deville's are superior to the old-hat land barge.

1. FWD versus RWD. Score one for the Fleetwood
2. Reliability. N* versus L05 / LT-1. Score one for the Fleetwood
3. Ride. Unibody versus body on frame. Score one for the Fleetwood
4. Size. Subjective. Score one for which ever car you like more.
5. Upgradability. Score one for the Fleetwood.

[ShadowLvr400]

You know, a number of people are giving the DeVille performance marks over the Fleetwood. But with the aftermarket that a D-Body can take off the Impala/Caprice B-Bodies, and the near 50/50 weight distribution, a Fleetwood could be tweaked to demolish the smaller DeVille in performance. And for braking, those rear drums still bring the big Fleetwood down to a stop mighty quick.

Also, insurance ratings have a occupant survivability on the Fleetwood as being a 32, vs the DeVille's 74 (Fleetwood wins)

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Driver Death Rates By Model - A rating of 100 is average. Lower numbers indicate vehicles that are involved in fewer fatal accidents than average, while higher numbers indicate involvement in more fatal accidents. A rating of 25, for example, represents a driver death rate of one-fourth the average, while a rating of 295 is nearly three times the average.

1993-95 Cadillac Fleetwood = 32
1992-95 Cadillac Seville = 40
1994-95 Cadillac DeVille 4-door = 74
1992-95 Cadillac Eldorado = 87

[MachX]

Originally Posted by 90Brougham350

1. FWD versus RWD. Score one for the Fleetwood
2. Reliability. N* versus L05 / LT-1. Score one for the Fleetwood
3. Ride. Unibody versus body on frame. Score one for the Fleetwood
4. Size. Subjective. Score one for which ever car you like more.
5. Upgradability. Score one for the Fleetwood.

1. That depends. Unless you are truly offended by torque steer, then yes RWD is smoother in that respect. But, living in a snowy climate, I can have snow up to my bumper and pull my car out with relative ease, while Crown Vic and Caprice drivers are busy trying to shovel their cars out, and having to get all their neighbours to help push their cars loose while I happily cruise away.
2. Can't comment, haven't owned a Northstar yet, but I don't see them as being unreliable, considering Cadillac has employed them with great success for the last 13 years.
3. Unibody designs have come a long way, and are actually now stiffer than their full framed counterparts. Hence why a new Deville gets better ratings for ride than the somewhat flimsy panther platformed Fords.
4. Size. We all love our large sedans. But there is nothing wrong with efficiency in packaging. If I can get identical passenger and trunk space with less overhang, and better handling/manoueverability, I'll take it.
5. Once Cadillac starts fully implementing its new Northstar with the supercharger integrated into the intake, I don't think anybody will worry about upgrading them. 4.4L with 443 hp will be lots.

[ShadowLvr400]

He's looking at a 4.6L Northstar which had an issue with head gaskets. As for 443 horse being lots?..... To each their own. I plan to see over 500 horse on my daily driver.

Onwards, the Northstar Deville and LT1 Fleetwood have similar mileage estimates.

And yes, torque steer bugs me. Plus, I don't see snow here in the sunshine state often. While you're seeing snow, I've been going out in shorts and a t-shirt. Right now, in mid to late Feb, it's 56 F out at 1 am.

[90Brougham350]

The snow argument doesn't hold water. I've never had a single problem with my 85 Parisienne or my Brougham in the snow. I'd rather drive RWD in the snow, you have much better control over the vehicle.

[I~LUV~Caddys8792]

From what I've experienced, from a dead stop, it's much easier to get a FWD car moving in heavy snow then it is a RWD car.

[Ak Jim]

Yes, I khow this is a Caddy forum but the 94-96 Impala SS is an awesome car. It has a heavy duty suspension, 4 wheel disks, and LSD. The down side is the interior is CHEAP, the door panels squeek like a mofo!!