How GM should have done the 94-96 Fleetwood - Page 5
Cadillac
 

Cadillac Forums | Help Us Help You | Advertise | Cadillac Parts | Cadillac News | Cadillac Classifieds / (Old System)

Cadillac Technical Archive | Cadillac Dealers | Cadillac Reviews | Cadillac Dealer Reviews | Cadillac Vendors

CadillacForums.com is the premier Cadillac Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 119
Like Tree29Likes
Community Lounge, Introductions and General Discussion Discussion, How GM should have done the 94-96 Fleetwood in General Discussion; The early 70's Cadillac's were bad in terms of interior and exterior quality. I remember my 72, the front chrome ...
  1. #61
    SDCaddyLacky's Avatar
    SDCaddyLacky is offline Cadillac Owners Enthusiast
    Automobile(s): 94 Fleetwood Brougham, Past: 72 Sedan, 68 Coupe Deville
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego, Cali
    Posts
    556

    Re: How GM should have done the 94-96 Fleetwood

    The early 70's Cadillac's were bad in terms of interior and exterior quality. I remember my 72, the front chrome grill is all plastic, the exterior trimmings are pot metal and aluminum. It was so hard to keep the trim shiny because of the crappy trim, especially around the rear window. The interior lacked flash, and I always had to slam the doors for them to close, because they would clanky and not latch correctly. One thing for sure is that you feel the solidness of those big Caddys back then, the doors, the hood, trunk were all heavy duty.

    I can say for sure that the 93-96 Fleetwoods are much better cars than those early 70's Cads. Cadillac always made great drivetrains and engines before all the damn smog regulations went into effect which created more problems for those massive 472-500 motors.

    I think starting in 94 with the LT1 introduction, Cadillac finally went back to it's roots somewhat. Finally a Cadillac that had lot's a power again, starting in the late 70's and 80's, a decades worth of slow chugging V8's that Caddy produced was remedied with the 4.6 Northstar and LT1 in 94. Even though it's small block Chevy, hey it's a great engine, so who cares, right?

    What i loved about the 472 engine, was how much torque it had, I mean for 4,700lb car, it easily moved the giant Caddy with ease, much better than my 94 Fleetwood. I barely would touch the gas pedal and it took off. Gas pedals back then were light to touch, they were smooth and never really gave any kind of resistance (push back) when stepping on the gas. I notice on my 94, the pedal is harder, a little stiff compared to the 72 Deville.

    Also in a sense, I consider the 93-94 Fleetwoods a full size 70's Cadillac Deville, rather than a true Fleetwood. The 60's and 70's Fleetwoods were much bigger than the 90's ones, by a good 7 or 8 inches longer so in a way they are close, but not in the same league.

  2. #62
    I~LUV~Caddys8792's Avatar
    I~LUV~Caddys8792 is offline Moderator
    Automobile(s): 1992 Town Car Cartier & 2014 Accord LX MTX
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Roseville, MN.
    Age
    27
    Posts
    34,087

    Re: How GM should have done the 94-96 Fleetwood

    My biggest beef with the LT1 Fleetwoods? Their interior design and quality wasn't up to snuff. IMO it was a real boring design without much flair or excitement and the materials, except for the leather, were nothing to write home about. The 77-92's had a much nicer interior IMO. They used a lot more chrome, a lot more of the faux wood trim and it was a lot more appealing to the eyes. I also didn't like how long the dashboards on the 93-96's were, and how their instrument panel offered NO information. I would have loved to see a full gauge cluster in there, like the 1991-93 Roadmasters and 1991-92 Custom Cruisers had (tachometer, voltage gauge, oil pressure, coolant temp, fuel and speedometer), and a trip computer would have been great as well. All other Cadillacs had them in '94, but the fact the Fleetwoods didn't truly shows how little GM cared to spend any money on them.
    "They call Alabama the Crimson Tide, call me Deacon Blues."

    Current:
    1992 Lincoln Town Car Cartier Edition (5/14- ?)
    2014 Honda Accord LX MTX Sedan (1/14 -?)

    Past:
    1995 Buick Roadmaster Limited (4/04-12/04)
    1992 Cadillac Sedan deVille (12/04-9/07)
    1999 Mercedes Benz S320 (8/07-7/09)
    2000 Buick Regal GS (7/09-4/12)
    2003 Mercury Marauder (4/12-10/13)
    1991 Buick LeSabre Custom Sedan (9/12-6/13)
    2013 Honda Accord LX Sedan (6/13-1/14)

  3. #63
    Bro-Ham's Avatar
    Bro-Ham is online now Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): 1979 Cadillac Sedan deVille d'Elegance
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sarasota, FL
    Age
    46
    Posts
    3,869

    Re: How GM should have done the 94-96 Fleetwood

    Cadillac needs cars with real names, harkening back to their rich history - there is nothing to be ashamed of, with the exception of the mid-80's to present.

    Cadillac needs to put big powerful engines in big comfortable cars. These cars don't need the strangled styling of the current breed, but need classy, classic styling that is prominent and impressive. Some purely fine chrome detailing, thoughtful design, body creases and caresses that are as sexy as as could possibly be innovated or imagined.

    The luxury of fine furniture needs to be featured: superb and unique seating and interior environment that is both pleasing to sit in, and, most importantly, deliciously beautiful to behold.

    Cadillacs are purely American. We need to get off our laurels, and wreaths and crests, and get ourselves out there with boldness and bigness. This will sell cars and create dreams and aspirations.

    The Cadillac that conquers the world is in desperate need of coming forward. We're waiting. Lead the way Cadillac!!!

    orconn, orconn, lacville78 and 1 others like this.

  4. #64
    SDCaddyLacky's Avatar
    SDCaddyLacky is offline Cadillac Owners Enthusiast
    Automobile(s): 94 Fleetwood Brougham, Past: 72 Sedan, 68 Coupe Deville
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego, Cali
    Posts
    556

    Re: How GM should have done the 94-96 Fleetwood

    My answer would be for Cadillac to build that Ciel Concept already. Stop playing games and do something bold for once. Build big Cadillac's like you used to..... Do you hear me GM!!??
    lacville78 and lacville78 like this.

  5. #65
    jayoldschool's Avatar
    jayoldschool is offline GM RWD V8 addict
    Automobile(s): 81 FWB D'Elegance coupe
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Age
    41
    Posts
    6,803

    Re: How GM should have done the 94-96 Fleetwood

    You can have the Ciel as long as I get the Sixteen...


  6. #66
    Bro-Ham's Avatar
    Bro-Ham is online now Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): 1979 Cadillac Sedan deVille d'Elegance
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sarasota, FL
    Age
    46
    Posts
    3,869

    Re: How GM should have done the 94-96 Fleetwood

    Jay, if you keep this up we'll have to move this thread back to the RWD forum...

  7. #67
    drewsdeville is offline Cadillac Owners Master
    Automobile(s): 2011 Crown Vic LX
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Oak Creek, WI
    Posts
    5,310

    Re: How GM should have done the 94-96 Fleetwood

    My opinion of what they should have done with the Fleetwood - they should have killed the entire b/d platform and completely redesigned the whole thing from scratch. They should have done it years earlier than the '94-'96 in question, after the mid-80's when the more modern/advanced FWD platforms snowballed into dwindling b/d sales. If GM had put the same effort into redesigning the b/d bodies as they did into developing the impressive (for the time), successful (but drawn out) W, E/K, and H bodies, they would have had something.

    The awkward, inefficient geometry of the exterior and interior on the 94+'s is obvious evidence of a (poor) attempt to modernize an aging platform that was impossible to keep up with the times, especially for a high end name like Cadillac Fleetwood.

  8. #68
    orconn's Avatar
    orconn is offline Cadillac Owners 10000+ Posts
    Automobile(s): Cadillac 95 STS, 02 SLS
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Midlothian, VA
    Age
    71
    Posts
    12,675

    Re: How GM should have done the 94-96 Fleetwood

    Quote Originally Posted by drewsdeville View Post
    My opinion of what they should have done with the Fleetwood - they should have killed the entire b/d platform and completely redesigned the whole thing from scratch. They should have done it years earlier than the '94-'96 in question, after the mid-80's when the more modern/advanced FWD platforms snowballed into dwindling b/d sales. If GM had put the same effort into redesigning the b/d bodies as they did into developing the impressive (for the time), successful (but drawn out) W, E/K, and H bodies, they would have had something.

    The awkward, inefficient geometry of the exterior and interior on the 94+'s is obvious evidence of a (poor) attempt to modernize an aging platform that was impossible to keep up with the times, especially for a high end name like Cadillac Fleetwood.
    You are right, but GM chose to pander to a market that was literally dying off, and thought that giving this imagined market what it had before in the form of a large car poorly made from cheap materials from a brand who day had already passed would somehow attract buyers. Truth was those that could still afford a "luxury" car had already opted for brands from overseas.

  9. #69
    Jesda's Avatar
    Jesda is offline Super Moderator
    Automobile(s): An endless stream of Sevilles.
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    St Louis MO
    Age
    32
    Posts
    22,218

    Re: How GM should have done the 94-96 Fleetwood

    They should have developed a modern AWD/RWD car for 1997. Simple as that. Chrysler's 300 wouldn't be the seller it is today if GM had stepped up.

  10. #70
    Aron9000's Avatar
    Aron9000 is offline Cadillac Owners Master
    Automobile(s): Past: 95 Fleetwood, 91 Brougham. Now: 92 Lexus SC300
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    5,160

    Re: How GM should have done the 94-96 Fleetwood

    Quote Originally Posted by Jesda View Post
    They should have developed a modern AWD/RWD car for 1997. Simple as that. Chrysler's 300 wouldn't be the seller it is today if GM had stepped up.
    Which brings up another point, GM hasn't really come up with anything revolutionary or "must have" in the large sedan category since 1977. Its like they just stopped giving a damn about this market segment entirely.
    SDCaddyLacky and SDCaddyLacky like this.

  11. #71
    SDCaddyLacky's Avatar
    SDCaddyLacky is offline Cadillac Owners Enthusiast
    Automobile(s): 94 Fleetwood Brougham, Past: 72 Sedan, 68 Coupe Deville
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego, Cali
    Posts
    556

    Re: How GM should have done the 94-96 Fleetwood

    I would like to ask that question to GM, "Why did you guys give up so early on the RWD Large car platform"? I mean at least they could of kept the B-D bodies going, but on a smaller scale. Ford destroyed GM in sales with their RWD Panther cars, this is mainly the reason why the Fleetwoods, Caprice, Imapala, and Roadmaster went into extinction, and started building SUV's. I understand that the market at the time wasn't being favorable to GM, but the company truly lost out on providing consumers an option to big RWD Fords.

    Even when GM comes out with the new RWD platform, those cars still wont be as huge as the 93-96 Caddy Fleetwood. Building a car ranking in at 225 inches long, is sorta sickening in today's society. Almost grossly huge. Hopefully Cadillac's flagship Caddy will be longer than 210 inches, I would be ok with that length. Car manufacturers are getting away with making short cars look massive. The Chrysler 300 is a perfect example, it has a lot of body to the design, it sits up high, and it looks really beefy and solid.

    The BMW 7 series is another example of a car that isn't that long, but looks big from every angle. Throwing on bigger wheels like 22's also helps. I just want car that has a real nice softly padded rear seat. No new car at the moment has truly soft seats that is comparable to my Fleetwood.

  12. #72
    jayoldschool's Avatar
    jayoldschool is offline GM RWD V8 addict
    Automobile(s): 81 FWB D'Elegance coupe
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Age
    41
    Posts
    6,803

    Re: How GM should have done the 94-96 Fleetwood

    I would like to ask that question to GM, "Why did you guys give up so early on the RWD Large car platform"?
    GM didn't give up "early" The B/D platform dated to 1977, and that was originally tooled for the 2nd gen Monte Carlo. They gave up because they needed the manufacturing capacity at Arlington (by 1996, the only line still producing B/D cars , Willow Run MI had stopped five years earlier) for full size SUVs. It was simple dollars and cents: the SUVs had a much higher profit margin.

  13. #73
    Jesda's Avatar
    Jesda is offline Super Moderator
    Automobile(s): An endless stream of Sevilles.
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    St Louis MO
    Age
    32
    Posts
    22,218

    Re: How GM should have done the 94-96 Fleetwood

    The platform itself was ancient, but a sophisticated unibody car should have taken its place while keeping the primary drive wheels in the back.

  14. #74
    SDCaddyLacky's Avatar
    SDCaddyLacky is offline Cadillac Owners Enthusiast
    Automobile(s): 94 Fleetwood Brougham, Past: 72 Sedan, 68 Coupe Deville
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego, Cali
    Posts
    556

    Re: How GM should have done the 94-96 Fleetwood

    Quote Originally Posted by Jesda View Post
    The platform itself was ancient, but a sophisticated unibody car should have taken its place while keeping the primary drive wheels in the back.
    Yes that would have helped. GM just didn't care to do anything unique.

  15. #75
    SDCaddyLacky's Avatar
    SDCaddyLacky is offline Cadillac Owners Enthusiast
    Automobile(s): 94 Fleetwood Brougham, Past: 72 Sedan, 68 Coupe Deville
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego, Cali
    Posts
    556

    Re: How GM should have done the 94-96 Fleetwood

    Quote Originally Posted by jayoldschool View Post
    GM didn't give up "early" The B/D platform dated to 1977, and that was originally tooled for the 2nd gen Monte Carlo. They gave up because they needed the manufacturing capacity at Arlington (by 1996, the only line still producing B/D cars , Willow Run MI had stopped five years earlier) for full size SUVs. It was simple dollars and cents: the SUVs had a much higher profit margin.

    Like any greedy corporation, they went with what made them money to please the stockholders. US Automakers can't seem to bypass the $$$ signs, I can't understand why these corporations are run as if they are being stranglehold. It would of been nice if someone in GM could have saved the B-D platform even though they wanted to focus on SUV's. Almost like a pride thing, Cadillac lost it's mojo and swagger for a long time when the Fleetwood got discontinued. Now with Cadillac's sharp styling, and attraction it has on young people, the brand has been turned around, but it still doesn't have a car that represents the old school days when Cadillac was the biggest baddest car on the highway. Once it finally does, either with the lovely Cadillac Sixteen or the Ciel, then I will have more respect for the brand and possibly even think about buying one in the future. Because as of now, I don't really care for their sporty looks and uncomfortable looking interiors.

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Bookmarks

Cadillac Posting Rules

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Read about Lincoln | Buick | Kia Forte Forum
Need products for your Cadillac? Check out your options at the links below:

custom floor mats | Cadillac Chrome and Black Chrome Wheels | window tinting